User talk:Scientific Pen

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

December 2023[edit]

Information icon Hi Scientific Pen, I'm MrOllie. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently made additions to one or more articles such as Brain–computer interface without citing a reliable source. Please note that all content and edits on Wikipedia are expected to be verifiable in reliable sources. In articles related to medical topics, the standard for content and sourcing is defined at WP:MEDRS, and in your edit you did not include any references that meet that ideal. Please have a look at MEDRS to learn about the quality standards for medical sourcing. You might also want to take a look at WikiProject Medicine. If you have any questions related to sourcing of medical issues, you can ask at the WikiProject Medicine Talk page. For general questions about sourcing, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC) MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
First of all, thank you for your feedback.
I am a neuroscience graduate student and we are editing the articles assigned to us by our professor within the scope of the "Biotechnology in Neuroscience" course. The resources I use consist of scientific articles on PubMed. Maybe I'm making a mistake somewhere regarding referencing. I would like to explain to you how I show the references so that you can help me.
After pasting my text into the target section, I click on the "ref" section at the bottom left. and I paste the reference I got from the "cite" section on the PubMed site in the middle.
For example; Moreover, the demonstrated potential of electrical neuromodulation strategies in resolving cognitive and memory deficits underscores their significance as a viable therapeutic approach in the ongoing pursuit of enhancing cognitive function and quality of life in individuals affected by dementia. Gruber D, Calmbach L, Kühn AA, Krause P, Kopp UA, Schneider GH, Kupsch A. Longterm outcome of cognition, affective state, and quality of life following subthalamic deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2019 Mar;126(3):309-318. doi: 10.1007/s00702-019-01972-7. Epub 2019 Jan 25. PMID: 30684055.
If there is any error in use, I ask you to help me with this. However, if there is no mistake in my use of references, then I request you not to remove the sections I added.
Sincerely, Scientific Pen (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sourcing guideline you've been pointed to above thoroughly. Many articles (most, in fact) that you find on PubMed will not meet the required standards. MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,
PubMed is a reliable source and is widely used in article writing. When I look at the current Wikipedia article, I see that there are many PubMed sources. The articles I have selected are current articles and provide information about the latest studies. I thought it would be appropriate to add when the current article does not contain up-to-date information. If my "use of references" is correct, I request you not to intervene. Scientific Pen (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, your "use of references" is not correct, as I told you twice, and am now telling you for a third time. PubMed is an index, not a source. Some articles you will find there will be usable, and many will not. You must read, understand, and follow Wikipedia's sourcing requirements to determine which is which. MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I noticed you have been editing some health-related articles, and I wanted to say that a bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You're welcome to join us if that's an area of editing that interests you. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put the group's page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I extend my gratitude for your correspondence. I wish to bring to your attention a significant issue I am currently encountering. As a Neuroscience master's student holding a degree in Psychology, I am actively engaged in editing the Binge Eating Disorder article as an integral part of my coursework. Regrettably, the content I meticulously contributed has been removed by an individual who appears to lack expertise in the subject matter of Binge Eating Disorder. I am perplexed by the rationale behind this deletion, as it seems incongruent with the informational and academic standards of the platform. I kindly seek your assistance in resolving this matter. The information I incorporated into the article was diligently researched, and I earnestly request that due consideration be given to reinstating my contributions. Thank you for your prompt attention to this concern.
Sincerely, Scientific Pen (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have told you several times in the section immediately preceeding this one, your sourcing has to meet the requirements laid out in WP:MEDRS. Single primary studies do not meet these requirements - review articles do. Fix your sourcing and you should have no further issues. MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have not carefully investigated my references. Selected articles are shown among the "review" articles. Additionally, there are many resources that I share only as review references. For example; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29044551/ this article. Why did you delete them? I would also like you to please revise all the sources in the article and delete all articles other than "reviews". Please look carefully and show the same care for other users as you do for me. I will be waiting. Scientific Pen (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start. Now stop adding unreliable sources at the same time as usable sources and you should be fine. As to your request: No, I don't take orders. MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take back my articles and I will replace the primary sources I choose among the review articles with the review sources I took. Because I chose those primary sources from review articles. I am writing this within the scope of my master's degree course, so I cannot rewrite it from scratch. If you revert it, I can make changes to it. Scientific Pen (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your course requires that Wikipedia sourcing policies be discarded, that's something that you should take up with your instructor - it is the course that should change, not Wikipedia's policies and processes. I suggest that you do your coursework in a sandbox (see Wikipedia:About the sandbox), that is the recommended process for academic assignments. In a sandbox you can write what you like - live Wikipedia articles should not be used like this. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my area of expertise. I do not write in any field where I lack expertise, so there is no question of unreliability. What you are doing is harassment, and you consistently target me with this. There are more serious rule violations on Wikipedia. I perceive this personally because even on the current page, there are individuals making the same "mistake" as me, yet you specifically focus on me. I am telling you that I can change this. Why are you making it difficult? I have put effort into this page. Meanwhile, without even looking at what I wrote, you delete all my entries simply because the author is me. Is this in line with Wikipedia rules? Scientific Pen (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Making personal attacks is not going to help, and is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy, see WP:NPA. 2) There is a 'question of unreliability' since the sources you are citing do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing, which are different from what you may be used to in other contexts. 3) Just because I cannot fix all errors everywhere does not meet I cannot fix some problems as I see them. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. You don't read the content. You are deleting my post because I am the one who wrote it. As I said before, I added many review articles. But you deleted them too. I request you to give back what I wrote. Let me regulate it and if there is anything that needs to be deleted, I will delete it. Then you examine it "more carefully" and if you see any problems, then you delete it. Scientific Pen (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're up against some unfortunate history here. Years ago, we had a kid show up and pretend to be a professor of something (history or theology), and a lot of people trusted him and were hurt when they discovered that his claimed expertise was completely fabricated. They say that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and on Wikipedia, anyone can claim to have expertise – and even though in my experience, very few editors are outright liars like that, we're sort of nervous of the claim. We even have editors say that Wikipedia:I am not a reliable source.
I think your best approach here is going to be adding/fixing something very small, perhaps one paragraph or even one sentence, and then letting that sit for a day. Use sources that are obviously good to a non-expert. That means "formal" or "official" correctness, like being a review article published in MEDLINE-indexed medical journal, rather than actually good. (We've also had problems with people cherry-picking certain primary research papers – I'm sure you can imagine what a mess the subject of alternative cancer treatments can become, as every snake oil salesman tries to get the one paper that gives the "right" answer into Wikipedia, while ignoring all the others that say it's quackery.)
If you can get one edit to "stick" for a whole day, then see if you can do more like that. The next time you get reverted, start a discussion one the article's talk page, or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine about whether your source is acceptable for the particular sentence in question. I don't think we have anyone else with particular interest in eating disorders, and the understanding of Binge eating disorder is changing rapidly, so I expect all of the articles in that area to need a lot of work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Scientific Pen!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

While editing Wikipedia:

If you have any questions, check out the Teahouse or ask me on my talk page. Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, welcome! ----Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scientific_Pen&oldid=1197827352"