User talk:Jj too small

June 2023[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not adding promotional material to Wikipedia rather trying to make sure that the Wikipedia pages remain scientifically accurate. The article that I have mentioned and linked is a published research paper that delves deep into why glutamate excitotoxicity is a flawed theory and how spreading depolarizations better explain the phenomenon seen. Jj too small (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and novel claims require strong WP:SECONDARY referencing. Primary scientific studies, especially related to human medical topics, are simply not sufficient (see WP:MEDRS). Being published in a referreed journal is nowhere near the threshold. DMacks (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article I have provided is a secondary source since it is a critique and review of the literature pertaining to excitotoxicity and spreading depolarizations over the last 60 years. Thanks. Jj too small (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tetrahydrocannabinol, you may be blocked from editing. The article you added is from lab research too preliminary to be used. See WP:MEDRS. Also, it is WP:OFFTOPIC for the article. Zefr (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you said: You left a comment under my page that talks about how the paper I was referencing is lab research and too preliminary. I understand that while my additions to Tetrahydrocannabinol may have been off topic, I would like to seek some clarity about the source I was referencing. The paper I was referencing is a critique of relevant literature that has been published over the last 60 years which would make it a secondary source. I further checked the referenced sources on Tetrahydrocannabinol and some of the sources present (such as reference 27) were similar in nature to the paper I am referencing. I am unsure of what the difference is between the sources present on Tetrahydrocannabinol compared to the paper I am referencing.

The source is a review of in vitro studies, which are far too preliminary and unconfirmed in vivo - much less in humans - to be used as a source for the encyclopedia. We use WP:MEDRS reviews to support medical (i.e., physiological or neurochemical) content. As stated in the edit summaries, the article has nothing to do with the effects on the brain of THC. Zefr (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zefr, the source used has 15 highly respected stroke researchers as authors and many do NOT do brain slice work. In fact, 10 of the 15 authors are neurosurgeons and neurologists whose own studies involve patients, intact animals, or both. Jj too small (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]