User talk:Dpolychr

November 2017
Hello, I'm Chiswick Chap. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Conserved non-coding sequence 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. ''Editors need to take extreme care when citing their own work (we have strict policies on advertising and self-promotion), especially when we are talking about primary research rather than review papers or textbooks (secondary sources). Wikipedia does sometimes cite primary research but since this can always be challenged it is desirable to rely on secondary sources as far as possible. '' Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Chiswick Chap,

In the ultraconserved elements wikipedia page, I added yesterday:

"For comprehensive reviews on this intriguing topic, see [14][15][16]"

Could you please provide me with some information regarding why those entries have been removed? Especially given that:

a) It's not an advertisement since these are the only available reviews on ultraconserved elements. Of course someone can fill in with more but at least these are the ones I found and which are published the last 5 years in respected journals. b) It's not a primary research paper but a review article. Review articles serve the purpose of being a reference in the field for people who are interested in reading more about a topic, thus they extensively refer to works

Thanks


 * Thanks for replying with your thoughts. Glad that it's a review paper. I feel strongly, however, that you should not be adding citations to your own paper(s), especially not to multiple articles which looks very much to other editors as if you were attempting to promote yourself. I think there may well be some sort of case to be made, but it would be better by far if you would put the suggestion on the article's talk page, not in the article itself, and leave it for the consensus of other editors (I'll keep out of the discussion as an involved party) to decide whether to use it and if so to what extent. It is not impossible for authors to edit topics in Wikipedia in which they have an outside interest, but they should always be aware of the dangers posed by conflict of interest, and should always take extreme care to avoid giving even the impression that they might be acting for themselves or for some interest outside Wikipedia: and unfortunately, it's extremely easy to give other editors that impression. I hope this is clear. Do take the time to read the conflict of interest policy if you have a moment. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)