User talk:Alesparacio992

July 2024
Hi Alesparacio992, I'm MrOllie. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently made additions to one or more articles 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 Reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * thanks for the reply. I quoted an article published in Nature HB, where the data of the study is published online along with a rigorous protocol . How is that possible that the source is not reliable?
 * Thanks Alesparacio992 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Plus there is no administration of any drugs in the clinical trials so it cannot be qualified as ‘medical topics’. It is more a behavioural intervention. Note that at the moment that article is the study on mindfulness that has the highest level of rigor. Pre-registered, with the biggest sample size and generalizable across different populations worldwide. Alesparacio992 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you read the guideline linked above, you will find the answer to your question. Also, please have a read of WP:COI and avoid writing about yourself or your work in the future. Thanks! MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see the part of COI - do not get why it would not be a reliable source tho. Alesparacio992 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant part is in bold letters at WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am looking all the citations on mindfulness. All articles cited score way less in impact factor and reputation than Nature HB (impact factor 29.9). You cannot say that Nature is not a reliable source. Alesparacio992 (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I surely can, based on the criteria we actually follow. Impact factor is not the relevant issue. The publisher is also not the relevant issue. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I get and understand the part of COI - rest is unclear- i read the part in bold. Alesparacio992 (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you know that we don't use primary sources or report on single studies, and that's what this is. I trust the matter is resolved, then. If you have further questions about what Wikipedia is or how it operates, I suggest you ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)