DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User talk:Walerus

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Concern regarding Draft:Maria Dorota Czajkowska Majewska

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Walerus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Maria Dorota Czajkowska Majewska, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning how to upload pictures to article and how to add references, so I am still there, please give me more time.
Thank you. Walerus (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Walerus

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Walerus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 08:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in my sandbox I placed a profile of a prominent Polish-American neuroscientist Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska. The very reason of existence of Wikipedia is to inform us about our best - people, thanks to them we are not cavemen anymore and can enjoy Wikipedia. "...the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals..." - is it so? Are you talking about this text:' Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska (publishes as Maria D. Majewska; born 30 January 1949) is a Polish neurobiologist and professor of medical sciences. She is best known for her foundational work on endogenous neurosteroids and for leading European studies on thiomersal’s neurotoxicity. Her discoveries on GABAA receptor modulation by steroid metabolites underlie brexanolone and zuranolone, the first neurosteroid-based treatments for postpartum depression.
==Early life and education==
Majewska was born in Zgierz, Poland. She graduated from Stanisław Staszic High School in Zgierz in 1966. In 1971, she received an M.Sc. in Biochemistry and Biophysics cum laude from the University of Łódź. She was awarded her Ph.D. in neurochemistry by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 1979.
==Academic career==
From 1972 to 1979, Majewska was a research scientist at the Center for Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw. She then spent over 26 years in the United States at:
  • University of Missouri
  • Harvard University
  • National Institutes of Health (NIMH, NIAAA, NIDA)
In 1988, she was a visiting scientist at INSERM (Endocrinology Department), Université de Paris-Sud, and collaborated with Georgetown University Medical School. She returned to Poland as a professor in 2007. Between 2006 and 2009, she held the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Excellence Chair in Neurobiology at the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, leading the FP7 “Neurobiology of Autism: Role of Steroids and Mercury” (ASTER) project. In 2015, she served as visiting professor at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University, Warsaw.
==Research contributions==
===Neurosteroids===
Between 1985 and 1987, Majewska’s team at NIMH published the first evidence that pregnenolone sulfate, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and reduced progesterone metabolites modulate the GABAA receptor complex as endogenous ligands[1]. This work established the neurosteroid concept, with implications for stress, mood, cognition, and seizure regulation.
===Clinical translation===
Building on Majewska’s foundational insights, Sage Therapeutics developed brexanolone (FDA approved 2019) and zuranolone (2023), the first neurosteroid-based treatments for postpartum depression[2].
===Thiomersal neurotoxicity and autism===
Under her Marie Skłodowska-Curie Excellence Chair (FP7, 2007–2010), Majewska led the ASTER project at the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology. Preclinical rat studies showed that neonatal thiomersal exposure triggers lasting behavioral, morphological, and neurochemical changes, including altered GABA, NMDA, and opioid receptor densities and neuronal apoptosis. Clinical investigations revealed that children with autism spectrum disorders exhibit impaired mercury elimination and elevated salivary steroid levels, suggesting potential biomarkers of neurodevelopmental toxicity.
==Bibliometric impact==
Majewska has authored nearly 100 peer-reviewed articles in journals such as Science, Brain Research, and Progress in Neurobiology. As of mid-2025, her work has amassed over 10,000 citations (average ~120 per paper; Google Scholar). Bibliometric analyses across NIH iCite, Web of Science, Semantic Scholar, and Dimensions show:
  • 52 publications in the 96th percentile for global neuroscience citations (NIH iCite)
  • 29 papers designated “outstanding” (>73rd percentile; iCite) and 30 as “influential” (Semantic Scholar)
  • 26 neurosteroid studies in the 99th percentile worldwide
  • 11 ASTER publications in the 68th percentile
==Science outreach==
Majewska has written over 40 popular-science articles for *Polityka* and *Dziś*, and two science books:
  • Nowy lepszy? Człowiek (Żak, 2005)
  • Człowiek globalny (PIW, 2009)
She chaired the Polish-American Health Association in Washington, D.C., from 2000 to 2001.
==Selected publications==
  1. Majewska MD, Harrison NL, Schwartz RD, et al. Steroid hormone metabolites are barbiturate-like modulators of the GABA receptor. Science. 1986;232(4756):1004–1007. PMID 2422758. DOI:10.1126/science.2422758[1]
  2. Majewska MD. Neurosteroids: endogenous bimodal modulators of the GABAA receptor. Progress in Neurobiology. 1992;38(3):379–394. PMID 1349441. DOI:10.1016/0301-0082(92)90025-A
  3. Harrison NL; Majewska MD; Harrington JW; Barker JL. Structure-activity relationships for steroid interaction with the γ-aminobutyric acidA receptor complex. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1987;241(1):346–353. PMID 3033209
  4. Demirgören S; Majewska MD; Spivak CE; London ED. The neurosteroid dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate is an allosteric antagonist of the GABAA receptor. Brain Research. 1990;526(1):143–146. PMID 1964106. DOI:10.1016/0006-8993(90)90261-9
  5. Majewska MD; Mienville JM; Vicini S. Neurosteroid pregnenolone sulfate antagonizes electrophysiological responses to GABA in neurons. Neuroscience Letters. 1988;90(3):279–284. PMID 3138576. DOI:10.1016/0304-3940(88)90202-9
==References==
  1. ^ a b Majewska, MD (1986). "Steroid hormone metabolites are barbiturate-like modulators of the GABA receptor". Science. 232 (4756): 1004–1007. doi:10.1126/science.2422758. PMID 2422758. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Gordon, JD (2019). "From Neurobiology to Novel Medications: A Principled Approach to Translation". American Journal of Psychiatry. 176 (10): 867–868. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19040386.
    3. ==External links==
    Walerus (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply

    [edit]

    You appear to have created at least four versions. One was on your user page, not appropriate, one was in draft space, and the most obvious of several problems was that it was in Polish, this is English-language Wikipedia. You have a third copy on this talk page, which is for messages to you, not for hosting content. You have a sandbox version, pretty well identical in terms of content to the other three, but that won't be accepted as an article anyway when you submit it.

    You have an obvious conflict of interest, please don't write about yourself, your friends or relatives and read the guidance below:

    • When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
    • Your text is almost entirely unsourced, apart from two references to her own paper, obviously not an independent third-party source. I can't access the other one.
    • Publications written by her should be listed as such, in a separate section if preferred, with no references for the items. They should not be used as references either, since by definition they are not independent third-party sources as required here.
    • She may well be notable, but without proper verification through independent sources, the article won't be accepted.
    • You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
    • I've seen worse, but unsourced claims include foundational work... leading European studies... Her discoveries on GABAA receptor modulation by steroid metabolites underlie brexanolone and zuranolone... with implications for stress, mood, cognition, and seizure regulation. and similar unsupported opinions.
    • There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
    • You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
    • I didn't check.

    Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. If you are writing about yourself, or someone you know as a friend, colleague, client, employer or relative, you have a conflict of interest, and you must disclose the nature of that COI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Jim,
    I greatly appreciate your attention and the many valuable remarks you made about my draft article “Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska.” This is my first attempt at writing for Wikipedia, so I clearly overlooked many rules or failed to provide enough information. Before I submit my improved version, could you find time to look over how I intend to revise it? I am a physicist without any publishing experience, and I would be grateful for your guidance. Thank you!
    Critique of My Early Version and My Responses:
    1.  “…and the most obvious of several problems was that it was in Polish, this is English-language Wikipedia.”   I posted a draft of the Polish version on pl Wikipedia, and the English version on en Wikipedia. They are not identical. I posted a COI statement in the Polish version and assumed it would be visible in English. I will add it  now —sorry for the oversight.
    2.   “…the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organization…”.   Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska, as a group leader at the NIH, discovered in 1985 the function of neurosteroids. I provided a link to the original paper, where she is the first author:
    Majewska MD, Harrison NL, Schwartz RD, et al. Steroid hormone metabolites are barbiturate-like modulators of the GABA receptor. Science. 1986;232(4756):1004–1007. PMID: 2422758. DOI: 10.1126/science.2422758
    This discovery was immediately recognized in Science’s “Research News”:
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.3715451
    “Steroids May Influence Changes in Mood”
    Science, 13 Jun 1986, Vol 232, Issue 4756, pp. 1344-1345; DOI: 10.1126/science.3715451
    3. Forty years later, this paper led to the development of the first drug based on this discovery, documented by an authoritative source—the director of NIMH, J.A. Gordon:
    From Neurobiology to Novel Medications: A Principled Approach to Translation: https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19040386.The most important notability criterion of a scientist is his/her scientific ranking by the recognized bibliometric websites, such as Google Scholar and Web of Science.
    4. Your text is almost entirely unsourced, apart from two references to her own paper…”
    When writing about a scientist’s work, their own papers are the most important evidence—their number, how often they are cited in research literature, and the prestige of the journals publishing them. Bibliometric sources evaluate the entire body of work in terms of citations and percentile rankings within the scientific community (Google Scholar, Web of Science, NIH iCite). I provided links to her open-access profiles:
    ‪Maria Majewska - ‪Google Scholar 
    https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/M.-Majewska/6786825
    Maria Dorota Majewska, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology - Dimensions
    Web of Science
    I am now adding more traditional sources:
    5. “Publications written by her …should not be used as references either, since by definition they are not independent third-party sources as required here.”
    I followed the example of fellow neurobiologist Jerzy Vetulani, whose publications are prominently listed.
    6. “She may well be notable, but without proper verification through independent sources, the article won't be accepted.”
    Her notability is supported by her extremely high ranking in the NIH database, evaluated via NIH Open Citation Collection (NIH-OCC) and iCite. Anyone can verify that her 1986 paper is rated in the 100th percentile worldwide among neuroscience papers published that year. Simply enter the PMID number into the iCite analysis tool.
    7. “You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.”
    Agreed. Some adjectives may have sounded promotional—I will revise them. All facts I provided are verifiable via objective bibliometric sources or NIH statements. NIH rankings are widely used in hiring and funding decisions.
    8. “…Her discoveries on GABAA receptor modulation by steroid metabolites underlie brexanolone and zuranolone... and similar unsupported opinions.”
    This was officially supported by an NIH representative:
    “The story of brexanolone begins in the early 1940s. … The subsequent recognition that naturally occurring metabolites of progesterone were actively produced in the brain intensified efforts to understand how these neurosteroids exerted their effects .NIMH scientists Maria Majewska and Steven Paul… showed that these neurosteroids induced anesthesia by enhancing the actions of GABA…This work moved beyond basic science, targeting the biological mechanisms underlying functions of the brain directly relevant to psychiatry.”
    (From Neurobiology to Novel Medications, link)
    The word “discovery” is used in Wikipedia to describe similar work by her former supervisor, Dr. Steven Paul:
    “In 1982, Paul and his colleague… published their discovery…”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_M._Paul
    So, I should have written: “Her and her group’s discoveries on GABAA receptor modulation by steroid metabolites underlie brexanolone and zuranolone…”
    9. Scientists with many official appointments can fill their Wikipedia biographies with career milestones. But for those focused solely on research, the most valued recognition comes from citations and bibliometric rankings. Shouldn’t this fit within Wikipedia’s standards?
    By the way, Maria Majewska is actually Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska. She published in the U.S. under the shortened name “Maria Dorota Majewska.”
    I believe Wikipedia should make full use of bibliometric and scientometric data in its articles.
    Thank you again. Walerus (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    More

    [edit]

    I'll give you one last chance to respond to my COI query. You must clarify any COI in the interest of transparency.

    What you believe is immaterial, you must follow our rules.

    It's up to you what version of her name the article is at, you can always redirect from the other.

    I'm not sure what part of Publications written by her …should not be used as references either, since by definition they are not independent third-party sources as required here. you don't understand. You can list her publications, as you have done, but you must not use them as references. Its her appointments and awards that make her notable. She may have obtained those for her work, but her own publication in itself does not make her notable, don't try to unilaterally change our procedures. The most important notability criterion of a scientist is his/her scientific ranking by the recognized bibliometric websites, such as Google Scholar and Web of Science. Not here.

    I hope any future edits will be to the existing sandbox version, I really don't want to keep play Whack-A-Mole with multiple copies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    COI

    [edit]
    This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Wikipedia Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska.

    Walerus (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 25)

    [edit]
    Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hurricane Wind and Fire was:
    The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
     The comment the reviewer left was:
    Hello. There are many uncited statements, so before resubmission, find more reliable sources to verify the uncited information.
    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 after they have been resolved.
    🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 03:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Teahouse logo
    Hello, Walerus! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 03:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your submission at Articles for creation: Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska (December 11)

    [edit]
    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 is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
     The comment the reviewer left was:
    This draft has one or more reference errors, which indicate errors in the formatting or use of the references. The reference errors should be corrected before resubmitting this draft. This draft cannot be reviewed in detail until the reference errors are corrected.

    See Referencing for Beginners for instructions on how to format references.

    If you do not know how to correct the reference errors, you may ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help Desk.
    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 after they have been resolved.
    Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome!

    [edit]

    Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

    It appears you may have used a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, in your edits. While LLMs are powerful, machine-generated text often contains serious flaws. They may introduce bias, errors, plagiarism, libel, or even hoaxes. Specifically asking an LLM to "write a Wikipedia article" can sometimes cause the output to be outright fabrication, complete with fictitious references. Editors must verify all LLM-generated text before using it in an article. Completely LLM-generated articles may be quickly deleted. If you are unsure about your wording, an alternative is to suggest it on the talk page for another volunteer to look at it. If you are creating a new article, you may use the Articles for Creation process to get feedback on your work.

    As you get started editing Wikipedia, you may find the pages below to be helpful:

    If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page, and someone will be along to answer it shortly. In your messages, please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. Happy editing! Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 23:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your remarks! No, I have not used the LLM as such. I started with a long Word article, way too long, and used my Copilot to shorten it to the essentials. After that I corrected it, changed details, and of course all references, data in the article, citations etc I added myself step by step, from the Word draft, converting them to the Wiki format. If and after the draft will be approved, I still will try to improve it by adding, for example, a life story of a research article in the citation space - a half-life time of an idea in a scientific memory. Walerus (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    AfC notification: Draft:Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska has a new comment

    [edit]
    I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your submission at Articles for creation: Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska (December 14)

    [edit]
    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:
    The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
     The comment the reviewer left was:
    Please address the comment by User:DMacks and resubmit.
    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 after they have been resolved.
    Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your submission at Articles for creation: Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska (December 14)

    [edit]
    Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by TheInevitables were:
    The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
    This submission appears to read more like a résumé than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, that provide secondary analysis of the subject's life in context. In contrast, résumés will tend to list individual accomplishments and rely on self-published sources, which might unduly focus on positive events and fail to properly balance their weight. Please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies by using independent, reliable sources.
    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 after they have been resolved.
    TheInevitables (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I added 6 more references “from outside: two statements from the President of Poland about awarding prof. Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska the honorary title of the Professor of Medical Sciences. A statement from the Polish American Health Association of Washington, DC about her presidentship of PAHA. Two more referrals to the science bibliometric databases ResearchGate and ScienceDirect with her detailed profiles. I added 3 more links related to her education and career. At this point the article has about 30 “Selected papers and books” -written by her, versus 47 external, secondary references from the reliable sources, such as her National Institute of Health (NIH) supervisors, from dozens of the experts in neuroscience including and commenting on her research in 943 review articles over the last 40 years, and the bibliometric impact data from the NIH.
    I absolutely agree with you about the semblance between the article and the resume, a CV. But this was the requirement of all previous reviewers: if you are writing about a scientist, tell us was she has done and prove it, citing witnesses. The proportion of „self-promotion” (I disagree with such description of the scientist’s publications: after all, Wikipedia is being used not only by “pedestrians”, but also by other scientists who may need to see what they are about) in this article is like 30 to 47, not bad. I have seen much longer publication listings. Remember, that unlike science administrators who can provide long lists of their administrative functions, a bench neuroscientist has only her own papers for support. Thank you again. Walerus (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Your submission at Articles for creation: Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska (December 17)

    [edit]
    Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
    This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
     The comment the reviewer left was:
    We are getting somewhere, but rather slower than you would wish. I am going to list some things that are required before I woful accept the draft. Frts off I think this is a likely pass of WP:NPROF, but I am unable to see it clearly because of the issues. I am not listing them in a priority order. Please read to the end before starting to take action:
    • "in highly popular reviews [9][10] [11] [12] [13" is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.
    • "Over 40 years the first paper on this topic was cited in hundreds of review publications, as reported by the database Web of Science, for example in highly popular reviews" is a lazy way of sussing the subsequent references. Unless you have something that cotes the fact you state then this is puffery. We require the article to be a distillation of what is said about Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska. This sentence is magazine stuff, not encyclopaedia stuff
    • A remarkable number of stated facts do not have references, thus the facts are inadmissible.
    • In other areas you have confused quantity with quality and created WP:BOMBARD
    • The great swathe of papers and book chapters must be condensed. Wikidata will deal with those post acceptance
    • Of course their work is an important part of their biography. And a peer reviewed paper acts as a reference. But the article must be about them not about their work. Notable work should have its own article. This means that your first step shoudl be to précis this draft, and to do so radically. Your only objective is to show that they are notable, it is not to set theor life's work out.
    • I think you have probably written what you wish to say about the subject, and then sought references after writing in order to cite what you say. This is WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, please read this essay, one of several which outline a process which will succeed assuming the subject to be notable. If it isn't notable then no amount of editing can help. We use the references in the process described in the essay to determine and verify notability. No suitable references means the subject is not notable, and it is time to stop.
    There is a lot of thought to be had before getting to work. Please think for at least twice as long as the time you will take to edit.
    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 after they have been resolved.
    🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You deserved a fuller review earlier. I'm sorry you have been working in the dark, so to speak. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Walerus (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about my typos. I am having some fine motor skills challenges at present. I reckon you can work them out, though.
    Take your time. Another reviewer will look at your next submission, I am now too close to it. What you are looking for is a substantial change, perhaps a full top down rewrite, which will simply get the draft over the finish line. Two more iterations of review at the most is your target. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]