User talk:Csupord

This is Csupord's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (June 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The only references are to the organization's own web site. If this organization is notable, provide evidence that others have written about it.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Csupord, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (June 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The article must be built from information found in third-party sources (newspapers, magazines) that are independent of the subject of the article. Those sources must be referenced in-line with the text they support. No un-referenced material is allowed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (September 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Please remove external links from article body. They are not permitted.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (October 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Focus with actually adding in-depth third-party news sources overall but no press releases, trivial passing mentions, interviews or other self-influenced and published materials.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hypericum perforatum reference

You are referring to this link, which is not a source that any Wikipedia user can read, but rather must purchase. It is not a WP:SECONDARY reference. --Zefr (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy

Hello, Csupord,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username CatcherStorm and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|CatcherStorm}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CatcherStorm ^talk 19:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedical sourcing

You are adding (and re-adding) PMID:38980633 to many articles, but any WP:BMI in articles generally requires WP:MEDRS sourcing. See also WP:SELFCITE and WP:REFSPAM. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion of one's own work. Bon courage (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add to many articles, I added it to 3 articles. What do you exactly mean on "generally requires WP:MEDRS sourcing"? The paper I cited was published based on original clinical research in a C1 medical journal. What else, what more is needed? Csupord (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review articles, basically. Please read WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, on the vinpocetine page, references 9, 16, 19, 20, 22 and 23 should also be deleted. Csupord (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Be aware though that non-MEDRS source may be completely okay for WP:NOTBMI. Bon courage (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hello, Csupord. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Peppermint extract, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You are apparently one of the authors of the paper you cited to add information this article and two others. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]