User talk:2601:152:A82:5A00:988B:11D7:4832:D347

February 2024
Hello 2601:152:A82:5A00:988B:11D7:4832:D347. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:2601:152:A82:5A00:988B:11D7:4832:D347. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am not a paid editor, just a college student interested in this subject. Could you let me know which specific source was the issue. Not all these sources can possibly be bad???
 * Here are the sources I had used, please tell me which is not compliant. Several of these are from research papers and scientific sites:


 * https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/030-125l_S2e_LL_Diagnostik-Therapie-exekutive-Dysfunktionen_2020-06.pdf
 * https://dgn.org/leitlinie/diagnostik-und-therapie-von-aufmerksamkeitsstorungen-bei-neurologischen-erkrankungen
 * https://mybraingames.net/six-games-that-will-make-you-smarter/
 * https://braincity.berlin/en/story/neuronation - I am assuming this one?
 * https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00025133
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320805240_Evaluating_the_Effectiveness_of_Commercial_Brain_Game_Training_with_Working-Memory_Tasks
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353992895_Commercial_Brain_Training_Efficacy_Transfer_Effects_and_the_Influence_of_Personality_Traits_A_Study_Conducted_on_Healthy_Young_Adults
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.12866
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6700632/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6715098/
 * https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-019-1212-1
 * https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-022-03201-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:A82:5A00:988B:11D7:4832:D347 (talk • contribs)


 * See WP:MEDRS. Sourcing standards for biomedical content on Wikipedia are very stringent, and most research papers and scientific cites (including these) will not meet them. - MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)