Bio.grunt.poke
February 2020 edit
Hello, Bio.grunt.poke. 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.
MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
MrOllie Please refrain from reverting productive edits on topics on which you most likely do not have domain expertise. Citations from multiple groups have been included. Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Stop spamming us with primary sources. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR that is not what Wikipedia is for. - MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles such as `https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study` have many primary sources (eg. PMID 20837927). The field of human genomics is fast moving, and reviews are not published quickly enough for wikipedia to be a good learning resource for people who are not familiar with the computational method.Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- MrOllie I appreciate the contributions that you have made to a wide range of topics on wikipedia, but one set of rules may not be appropriate for all wikipedia articles.Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Bio.grunt.poke, I'm afraid that these are still mandatory rules unless consensus changes. Please read the medical reliable source guidelines. It is right up there in the beginning. I quote: " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content " —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- moonythedwarf, emphasis on the word `generally`, which I take as not always true. Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Bio.grunt.poke, It not holding true only happens if consensus (opinion of multiple editors) changes. If you want, you can raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- moonythedwarf I don't see what you stated about consensuis and opinion of multiple editors on the page you linked. If you want, you can raise issues with the suggested authorities. Thank you. Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Bio.grunt.poke, WP:CONSENSUS. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is not a guideline, it is policy to follow consensus. Please do not WP:WIKILAWYER. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Bio.grunt.poke, WP:CONSENSUS. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Also, notice this note on the medical reliable source guidelines `Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. E.g., the article Genetics could mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews.` I argue that the primary sources are seminal. Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- moonythedwarf I don't see what you stated about consensuis and opinion of multiple editors on the page you linked. If you want, you can raise issues with the suggested authorities. Thank you. Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Bio.grunt.poke, It not holding true only happens if consensus (opinion of multiple editors) changes. If you want, you can raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- moonythedwarf, emphasis on the word `generally`, which I take as not always true. Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Bio.grunt.poke, I'm afraid that these are still mandatory rules unless consensus changes. Please read the medical reliable source guidelines. It is right up there in the beginning. I quote: " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content " —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Can you let us know if you are personally or professionally associated with any of the authors you're citing? Only someone with a conflict of interest would compare this to Darwin with a straight face. - MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate your efforts to increase the quality and validity of Wikipedia articles, but please refrain from using personal attacks in this discussion Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Bio.grunt.poke, MrOllie is a vastly more experienced editor than you. It's generally safe to assume that they are correct in what they say, and here I am backing up their opinion. I recommend bringing the dispute to WP:DRN if you absolutely must prove us wrong. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Moonythedwarf Please refrain from WP:Ad_hominem attacks. The redirect from PheWAS to GWAS page is now in dispute. Please continue the discussion on that page, as I will not be responding to comments any longer on this page due to violation of WP:Talk_page_guidelines Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Bio.grunt.poke, MrOllie is a vastly more experienced editor than you. It's generally safe to assume that they are correct in what they say, and here I am backing up their opinion. I recommend bringing the dispute to WP:DRN if you absolutely must prove us wrong. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate your efforts to increase the quality and validity of Wikipedia articles, but please refrain from using personal attacks in this discussion Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Can you let us know if you are personally or professionally associated with any of the authors you're citing? Only someone with a conflict of interest would compare this to Darwin with a straight face. - MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Welcome edit
|
