User talk:Biologytx

A question
Hi Biologtyx.

The pattern of editing you have done so far in Wikipedia is very typical of people who have had other accounts here, and are building up an edit count in a new account. Would you please disclose if you have used other accounts in Wikpedia in the past? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have not had any other user accounts in Wikipedia, so I hope that answers your concern. I am though very annoyed by grammar mistakes on biotechnology-related pages, and I can't resist correcting them (sorry if that bothers you). Biologytx (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! Doesn't bother me.  Please make sure you use highquality, non-commercial references when you add citations.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

spamming altogen.com
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.

Please be aware that we add websites that get spammed into Wikipedia to a spam blacklist, which harms a websites overall rankings across search engines. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Jytdog, I've done a lot more research on applications of PEGylation in biotechnology, and I've made a detailed section about the biotechnological applications of PEGylation. When you deleted the previous edits that I made, it seemed as though you did not care at all to look at the content and its relation to the article as a whole. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while it is not a collection of links, it must still attribute discoveries, developments, and products to the people and companies who develop them. If you have any concerns about inappropriate links, please be specific as to why they are detrimental to the content of the article. I assume that the 16 brand names present in the article should say something about how important it is to include specific products. Anyways, I'm not angry at you, your reviewing is critical to the integrity of Wikipedia, but please be more attentive when deleting content (maybe alter it to meet your criteria?). Thanks!Biologytx (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating altogen for the spam black list now. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop hand nuvola.svg You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.

Paid editing
Hello Biologytx. Your edits look as if you are being paid. Paid promotion is an especially egregious type of conflict of interest (COI) Paid articles should be submitted through the articles for creation process. If you are receiving or expect to receive money for your edits, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post the disclosure on your user page at User:Biologytx. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being paid, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not paid to edit by any organization, company, establishment, or for-profit institution.Biologytx (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you please direct me to a page where proper guidelines for external links are explained? I would like to properly know how to add external links. Thanks Biologytx (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Your persistence in spamming altogen.com specifically, leads me to not believe you. Sorry, I have no other way to explain your fixation with that company.
 * If you want to contribute, please use recently published literature review articles, published in good journals (no predatory publishers) and summarize them neutrally. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for directing me. If you don't want me to add any corporate/company references please say so and I won't because it's obvious I'm not quite good at it. I'm a high school student at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy and I'm studying biotechnology in a dual program with the Austin Community College. I'm not sure why you decided that I'm fixated with altogen, I checked my history and I've used it twice, both times in context of transfection. I think I'll just try finding better secondary sources like you said, but please don't make me the cause of an entry on a blacklist, I don't want that association. Biologytx (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Three times.
 * here
 * here
 * here

What is up with that?


 * this was a different company, also spammy.
 * this was a different company, also spammy

Wikipedia is not some blog, where you can just grab some website and throw it into Wikipedia. Think scholarly.

The biotechnology industry is a great thing. It is good you want to write about biotech here. Don't use crappy sources. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The three times you mentioned are on two pages, which were the ones I was talking about. I already wrote that I researched PEGylation thoroughly, and included the references I thought made sense. I think I get it now though, no primary sources from companies. I guess that means that for small articles like amphicelle it's gonna be difficult to find a valid source. I'm sorry if my editing isn't top quality, I'll try to do higher quality edits with the origin of the source in mind.Biologytx (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry I am being hard on you.  We get so much spam and promotional editing.  You have kept your cool admirably. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I get it, thanks for being honest. I'll try to do better edits.Biologytx (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope it's all cleared up then and I can edit still, it's getting late here so I'm not editing any more today, but I just wanted confirmation (you wrote above that I shouldn't edit until further notice). Good night Biologytx (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All good, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi!
I just saw you reached enough edits to reach extended/confirmed status. Congrats!

Hey I have a favor to ask you - -and I am asking this because it looks like you are doing much better at using high quality, secondary sources. A conflicted editor created an article, and it needs careful review to pull out the marketing hype and make it express only "accepted knowledge" and not selling... and it is molecular biology stuff. Do you want to have a go at it? It is BEAMing Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Jytdog, I looked at the BEAMing article and it seems to me like you took care of the bulk of the promotional stuff. There's still a few issues, and I'll take care of them right now.Biologytx (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, I made a few more changes than I expected, but it should be pretty decent right now. Judging from the previous content on Inostics, it seems like the company might be notable enough to warrant a new page for them, or just add a little note to the Sysmex page. I don't really know though, so I'll leave it to you to decide if there should be another page. Biologytx (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Not sure if the BEAMing article should remain or be merged to Digital polymerase chain reaction (an article that also needs work).  What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I mean, BEAMing has digital aspects, but using beads for PCR is a separate process. If there are other variations of dPCR then maybe they could all go in a separate section, but from my perspective BEAMing is significantly different.Biologytx (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A treat for you
Here is an article that I tried to tone down the in-house style, but there may be a few things I might have missed: Aldo Zelnick. Good luck! — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 10:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)