User talk:77.58.211.187

July 2022
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Now added a scientific review published in an academic international journal as primary reference, as listed in the original secondary reference: https://plusbiome.com/counting-on-the-microbiome-instead-of-counting-sheep/ 77.58.211.187 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * MDPI is a predatory publisher. MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * MDPI has been a controversial publisher, but it is unclear whether it could be described as "predatory", despite it lingering "bad reputation". See its own argumentation here: https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/2979
 * Moreover "Nutrients" is one of its most reputed journals:
 * https://www.science.org/content/article/open-access-editors-resign-after-alleged-pressure-publish-mediocre-papers
 * Finally, the authors of the article used as reference are prestigious researchers from the University of Tübingen in Germany. 77.58.211.187 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even prestigious researchers have a bad paper sometimes. One way we can tell is they resort to publishing with companies that have a bad reputation. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Editor of "Nutrients" is currently a highly published and respected Prof at Uni Connecticut; MDPI cannot currently in any way be categorized today as a "predator publisher", for which there is currently no good definition. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp27kzL1TLQ
 * We are also talking here about a REVIEW paper, with numerous references therein.
 * But if you insist, there are other reviews from other publishers, citing also the numerous scientific studies on this interesting topic, for example:
 * Cell Press: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2021.07.004
 * Elsevier https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinre.2021.101834
 * Nature: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-020-0656-x
 * This is a relevant topic that will be of interest to many wikipedia users. Feel free to read all the references and make your choice. 77.58.211.187 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Insomnia, you may be blocked from editing. The source is conjecture and not a confirmed mechanism supported by a WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS review. Zefr (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.