User talk:Noetel

Noetel, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Noetel! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! I would love to see you editing more often. A few edits from now, and you'll be able to get into articles like Pregnancy yourself. If you have questions or need help, please consider dropping by Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health or the (much bigger) Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine pages. Just leave a note on either talk page about whatever's on your mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, I'm Bennv123. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Asynchronous learning have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Bennv123 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your purpose on Wikipedia seems to be spamming citations to papers written by "Michael Noetel", which goes against Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam. Bennv123 (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Ben (talk), will ensure that both strengths and weaknesses of any topics are discussed, and contributions are fair and balanced, not soapbox-esque. I appreciate you pointing me to the policy. I realise that frivolous citations unconnected to the subject matter are not valuable. As an academic specialising in meta-analyses, I am usually conducting reviews on the effectiveness of topics in wikipedia. These reviews are the top of the hierarchy of evidence, meaning they are more authoritative than the primary studies usually cited in articles. I am still learning how to provide updates to Wikipedia regarding the state of the art, so that the encyclopedia is using authoritative evidence, and do it on topics I know in detail, without citing my work. However, I understand some ways of doing that—contributing the same evidence to other articles, citing other authors, etc. Noetel (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references you've been adding may well be reliable and authoritative on the subject matter, but due to the conflict of interest, I think it would be best if you refrained from adding them directly into articles yourself. You could use the request edit template and, in general, follow the guidelines laid out at WP:DISCLOSE. Bennv123 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bennv123—I have taken your advice. If I can offer some unsolicited advice in return, you might more carefully consider each contribution before undoing every single one. As you might have seen in the documents you sent me to: "Citation spamming ... should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." Also Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Noetel (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, I'm TechnoSquirrel69. I noticed that in this edit to Bridgewater Associates, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]