User talk:Busragulerr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Busragulerr, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Busragulerr! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:
This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please do not submit test pages for review- it wastes volunteer time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Qcne (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Neuroenhancement, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Pay attention to WP:MEDRS - your choice of primary sources is inadequate.

Also, please edit the Turkish Wikipedia instead of the English Wikipedia. Use of English is apparently not your strength or native language. Zefr (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zefr,
I've checked the citing sources guideline and believe the source I added (number 18) should not be against the guidelines. The article I cited was published recently (in 2021) in an independent journal and is a systematic review (a secondary source). The information provided in the article is up-to-date. The other citations (number 1 and 5) were used elsewhere in the article as well, so I don't think those are problematic.
I am a Master's student here in Turkey, and the edit I'm trying to submit is actually for a homework assignment. So I have to edit the English Wikipedia page, but I will try to revise the language to be better. Any specific feedback would also be appreciated.
If you could help guide me in the right direction as to why the source I provided is not reliable, I can also try to find another article and revise my edit accordingly. Thanks for any help you might provide. Busragulerr (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The modafinil section is adequately discussed and sourced as it is. There are no MEDRS reviews which confirm this drug as causing "smartness". Frontiers journals are suspected of predatory publishing, so are not useful or trustworthy for articles on medical content - see WP:CITEWATCH. Note that punctuation occurs before a source is given, WP:REFPUNCT.
There is no information on the article talk page that your course is approved or monitored by an instructor under Wiki Education. It seems odd to me a) that your class is expected to edit the English Wikipedia when English is not your first language, b) that graduate students are permitted to do their first encyclopedia editing on a medical topic (this requires expertise), and c) that neuroenhancement is appropriate for a course on biotechnology. There are many other true botechnology topics that could be edited (in Turkish). Zefr (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr, our advice for Frontiers' journals says that they need case-by-case evaluation, not a thoughtless, knee-jerk "It's Frontiers, so it's bad" response. This particular journal is indexed in MEDLINE and Index Medicus.[25] Scopus says it's a mid-tier journal.[26] It's therefore a reliable source, according to the criteria put forward in question #8 in the FAQ about how to do case-by-case evaluations. You should not have been edit warring to keep it out. You are an experienced editor, and you have been told many times, by multiple editors, that case-by-case evaluation is necessary for Frontiers and MDPI journals. You shouldn't be making this mistake in the first place, and you definitely shouldn't be reverting multiple times in the same day over this. You've been blocked three times in the past for edit warring. It is still a banned behavior. Ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or any of the usual noticeboards, rather than reverting repeatedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is abundant suspicion that Frontiers, MDPI, and Hindawi journals may have poor or absent editorial review and require compulsory payment from authors for publication (two factors of predatory publishing). Numerous academic or national organizations have recommended scientists not to publish in these journals (news reports 2015-23).
If the content being sourced can't be found in a more reliable, non-controversial source, then it likely isn't worth stating in the encyclopedia. My revert of this Frontiers source was explained and justified in edit summaries and above as a non-MEDRS source about the non-medical term, "smart drug". It was not a mistake, as there are no MEDRS sources to support the concept. I'd be interested to read your defense of the Frontiers report as a quality source.
This is a useful lesson for students to have skepticism about dubious sources. If you or any editor wish to dissipate your time studying dubious sources from controversial journals on a case-by-case basis, then proceed as you wish.
You showed poor judgment in attacking me and my editing choices on a student's talk page, WP:NPA. Please keep your complaining restricted to your own talk page or, better yet, only to your thoughts. Zefr (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is abundant evidence that Frontiers journals vary widely in their practices, and "compulsory payment from authors" is 100% expected in open-source journals. (Odd that you insist on medical sources for what you call a "non-medical term".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what WhatamIdoing said:

You are an experienced editor, and you have been told many times, by multiple editors, that case-by-case evaluation is necessary for Frontiers and MDPI journals. You shouldn't be making this mistake in the first place, and you definitely shouldn't be reverting multiple times in the same day over this. You've been blocked three times in the past for edit warring. It is still a banned behavior.

  • What other editor said back in 2020 (“Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot - instead of biting the newbie by continually reverting their edits before even trying to talk to them”), Blocks
Zefr’s accusation (“You showed poor judgment in attacking me and my editing choices on a student's talk page, WP:NPA. Please keep your complaining restricted to your own talk page or, better yet, only to your thoughts.”) looks more close to PA IMO. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Neuroenhancement, you may be blocked from editing. Zefr (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal talk page cleanup[edit]

Hi Busragulerr, just to make sure you know that users may freely remove (and/or archive) comments from their own talk pages.

Inappropriate content may be removed from any page in your user space, including your user talk page.

Please see this page for help on how to archive. See here for an example of talk page that always has its content removed (without archiving I suppose; people can still get the removed content from the page’s history though). I occasionally archive comments on my talk page (sometime just one comment, sometimes more), though I won’t do it often. Best,--Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Busragulerr&oldid=1199879254"