User talk:Sgdwiki

December 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Mangrove has been reverted. Your edit here to Mangrove was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline (see also this list of frequently-discussed sources). The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ajps.2012.91.95, https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2012.91.95 (redirects to scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ajps.2012.91.95), https://www.scialert.net/abstract/?doi=pjbs.2013.1130.1137, https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2013.1130.1137 (redirects to scialert.net/abstract/?doi=pjbs.2013.1130.1137)) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sgdwiki, I'm Boghog. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently made additions to several articles such as Bruton's tyrosine kinase and Cancer biomarker 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. Boghog (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, per WP:NOTNEWS, please avoid including recent research reports. An astoundingly high percentage of medical research simply cannot be repeated. For that reason, it is important that the research be reviewed by independent third parties (see WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS) and those secondary sources be cited before these results are included in Wikipedia. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sgdwiki. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add requestedit to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

Hello, Sgdwiki. In this edit you replaced, a WP:MEDRS compliant source that is a review of human clinical studies, with , a virtual screening primary source. Clearly, a review of human clinical trials far, far, more significant than the results of a virtual screen which are notoriously unreliable. Accordingly, I have reverted your edit. Boghog (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Boghog, Thanks for your clear info about wiki page updates. I am new to Wiki adding the info/references. I apologize if anything wrong. The exclusion of "PMID|34209188" may be an internet error while auto-retrieval of the new article. Sorry for that. I am not comfortable with adding other authors' publications on the Wiki page because of reliability. I may assure my publications. You removed all my publications with computational results and mentioned that virtual screening is unreliable. As a researcher using adequate computational resources, I could say virtual screening is reliable. We are paying for all the software, maintaining servers, and highly configured computational clusters. Sometimes, it exceeds animal experiments. I think wiki may reconsider their policy to include computational results.