User talk:Figgep

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!
Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:
 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! Tom (LT) (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hello Figgep - sorry that your edits have been reverted but the reasons for these are in my mind justified. In Fat I have just incorporated a little info from the website you link and used the link as a ref in the section. I also added one to the External links on another page. These web links are helpful and they could be added to any relevant articles in the External links section - then any editor could access them and use info from them. Perhaps the individual protein content could be placed in a separate section on pages but this needs to be written up and not just cut and pasted. Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding information on Anatomy project pages: Thanks for feed-back. New here and trying to understand how I best can contribute. I think the knowledge-based information that is present in the Human Protein Atlas (and a large number of scientific publications in peer reviewed journals) regarding normal human organs and tissues would be a basic and very important piece of information to the description as to what is the basis for differences between different organs, tissue and cell types. Is it the format or the content I have used that has lead to your reverting of my text?? The references given should be absolute adequate!?!
 * Pleased to see you haven't given up! Responding here to post on my talk page. The question of how best to use the material needs thinking about and I think the person best qualified to deal with this is Tom - who gave you the welcome notice. The main concern was that technical info was just added into other material with no explanation or links (and in at least a few cases material was just copied from the site). All best --Iztwoz (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, it's great to have another contributor around! Firstly, I do not think that it is encyclopedic to include these numbers in each article. It doesn't convey any meaning to state organ X has Y amount of proteins in it... as states it may be better to tailor this to anatomy articles by including context and relating this to the article's topic. Secondly, if you are going to include this content, it is not worthy of being in the WP:LEAD, which should only include the most relevant information. I suggest putting it in a subsection under "Structure", called "Protein expression" (or some such), with greater context and relation to the topic.


 * I feel the best thing to do would be to create an article such as Protein expression in human organs or something similar using the Article wizard. This seems to be an uncovered area and it is always useful to have a relevant article to link to. Feel free to ask for any help. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, great with your both response, thanks! Still learning and for that matter still not knowing how/where to communicate back on the above "messages" you wrote! Now in some "source editing" mode on my User talk:Figgep page and just trying.....So, this is what I will do for starters, I will try write up a brief text on the essence of results from protein profiling of human organs. I do think this does belong to the lead for each organ (guessing what here is termed WP:LEAD), but will begin with putting the text under a new subheading under "Structure" as suggested. As I see, the format for these pages are not fully congruent, but this will do for starters. I will also be happy to further on write a more focussed article under "Protein expression in human organs" as you suggested.

Copying and pasting text to numerous pages
Hello Figgep, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Having your and Toms earlier feed-back in mind, I have now tried to write a bit more comprehensive and structured short text on basic gene expression in normal human organs/tissues. I tested to do this with "Testicles", so that we can agree on a format that fits well in, before I start on other organs and tissue types. I still think this is fundamental information and could/should be in the lead of descriptive organ pages (at least those with a specific "Human XXXXX" page). One question is how to best reference to the corresponding organ page at the Human Protein Atlas. This is central and now I tried with an external webpage link after the subheading. Not sure that is best..... One possibility further on could be to add a pie chart and perhaps a few immunohistochemistry examples of proteins specifically expressed in the given organ type, and link from these. Just having it under "External links" or "See also" feels insufficient. Thankful for feed-back!

Having your and Iztwoz earlier feed-back in mind, I have now tried to write a bit more comprehensive and structured short text on basic gene expression in normal human organs/tissues. I tested to do this with "Testicles", so that we can agree on a format that fits well in, before I start on other organs and tissue types. I still think this is fundamental information and could/should be in the lead of descriptive organ pages (at least those with a specific "Human XXXXX" page). One question is how to best reference to the corresponding organ page at the Human Protein Atlas. This is central and now I tried with an external webpage link after the subheading. Not sure that is best..... One possibility further on could be to add a pie chart and perhaps a few immunohistochemistry examples of proteins specifically expressed in the given organ type, and link from these. Just having it under "External links" or "See also" feels insufficient. Thankful for feed-back!

Testicle
Hi. I'm just an editor, I'm Portuguese and my english is not good enough. I saw your post on Iztwoz Talk page. Your edit was out of place. You wrote something about genes on structure chapter, external appearence... I suggest you to put it on embriology chapter or you can create a new chapter about genetic. Cheers Doc Elisa  ✉

Hi and thank you ✉. Not sure where is best to put this information, first tried to add it in the lead, then after suggestion from other editors tried to add it under "Structure". It is basic information as it describes what fraction of our genes are expressed in the testicle and how many of these genes are specifically expressed in the testicle. Such genes are of course vital to both function, anatomy and histology of the normal testis but also a fundament for understanding diseases that effect the testicles

September 2017
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me how to do things right here Drm310 Figgep (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * talk Some tips that it took me a while to learn: 1) Talk page entries can be edited after the fact just like the main article. For example, you can go back to the spot where you didn't sign your entry with the four tildes, and do it now. Signing it links the comment to your "Contributions" (your edits from all Articles are listed there - click on Contrbutions at top right of page) and to the Page's "View history", so it's worth doing.  2) If yours is the first response to a Talk entry, start with two colons  and that will indent your response; if yours is the second response, indent four colons. If you have additional responses, stick with your original level of indentation.  3) After the colon, start by copy-and-pasting the user name in brackets of the user you are responding to. 4) You marked your recent addition to Kidney as "minor": designating an edit as minor is for correcting spelling, grammar, punctuation, spacing, and the like. Something as trivial as replacing one word with another is not considered "minor" - it's a full-fledged edit. And your edit is definitely not minor: it's a great addition to the Article!  Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * IiKkEe Thanks for the tips!! Trying to learn so all these tips on wiki ways of writing and communicating are helpful. Will see if I understand how to add the four tildes in talk pages where I did not know that I should have used this. Please let me know if you see this response (not sure when to use the @IiKkEe in communicating)

Figgep (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, I saw it: because you did it just right, I got a new "alert" at the top of any WP page. It's the bell icon at the top of every page next to your User name. A number 1 will appear over the bell when a new message has been posted: click on the bell, read the message, opt for save or delete: the number will remain on the bell until you read it, the number will go up if new message(s) arrive. IiKkEe (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding new information to human organ pages
Hi, not sure if this is best way to respond and comment on your comments, but will try.....Wrote a bit longer background on Fuhghettaboutit talk page.

Firstly, Tigraan wrote the below:
 * @Figgep: Please do not do this. A dictionary of synonyms is not enough to magically not be a copyright violation anymore.
 * I have not checked your assertion that the source is under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but assuming it is, it cannot be used on Wikipedia because the Wikimedia Foundation legal team deemed it incompatible with our CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, see WP:Compatible license. (Don't ask me why, there is probably a reason but I could not be bothered to search.)
 * The easiest way out, I think, would be for you to dual-license your text at the HPA as CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or another compatible license) in addition to 4.0. Then, it could be imported into Wikipedia with no modification, but we would still need to comply with the "BY" part of the license; to do so, use something like Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but please, I understand that "A dictionary of synonyms is not enough to magically not be a copyright violation anymore", and that is exactly why all contributions I have written the last two days have been off the top of my head to avoid both copyright issues and plagiarism! If the goal is to keep text concise and informative, there are certain formats of sentences that can be preferred. Would be extremely happy for constructive feed-back as to how you would modify this type of text! Will check up on compatible licenses and donations of copyrights from us, but for now I will avoid copying and just write text with my own words.

The ColinFine wrote the below:
 * Figgep, I'm afraid there's more. Separate from the question of copyright is the question of verifiabililty: any information you add to an article should be supported by (and preferably cited to) a reliable published source. If the source is your own work, that may be acceptable, but it should not be you that adds it, as that is seen as a conflict of interest. It would definitely be preferable to suggest the change, with citation, on the article's talk page so that the decision of whether or not to include it can be made by somebody else. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I was almost expecting more. The questions you raise I think are fine and my response to firstly verifiability, would be that all facts and data that I write about have been published in the top peer reviewed scientific journals (which are also cited in my texts), mainly in articles published in Science which, alongside with the Nature journal, is the most renowned journal publishing scientific knowledge. Secondly, it is not my own work, the knowledge I am trying to add comes from 1200 man years spent on the Human Protein Atlas, a non commercial academic project funded by a non-profit organisation. There is no COI to transmit the publicly available data and knowledge provided in scientific journals or the HPA website! Figgep (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Figgep Jumping into the conversation: being "peer-reviewed, most renowned, non-commercial, academic, non-profit, and publicly available" as you aptly put it, does not meet WP criteria. WP insists on text and references that are not primary sources = not original research. So if Nature publishes a peer reviewed hallmark paper on a double blind study showing a new medication that prevents Alzheimer's 100% of the time, and it's on the front page of major newspaper in the world, it is my understanding that WP will not allow that finding or a reference to that article until it is published in a review article or a textbook or is the common domain (not copyright protected). The irony to me is that WP does not allow opinion or unreferenced fact, but allows references from review articles, which are based on opinion (although admittedly from an expert). I have fudged on this by adding a new finding, and referencing it with an editorial on the subject (a sort of "review article") from a peer reviewed journal -  that is either acceptable or went unnoticed: I didn't ask, and it wasn't deleted by anyone.


 * If I were running WP I would solve this by allowing text based on original research, with a superscript PS added at the end of the text next to the citation so that the reader can take into account the text and reference is a Wikipedia "primary source".


 * So the challenge is: either write something from your general knowledge of the subject in your own words and find a review article or text that supports what you wrote OR read something in a textbook or review article, paraphrase it but don't copy it, and use as the reference the text that you paraphrased; and don't report original research at WP. Also, no figures, diagrams, or images except from Wikimedia Commons. (Try explaining the body fluid compartments without a diagram!) I hope someone will comment after me and tell us I'm wrong. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@IiKkEe @IiKkEe Just a short acknowledgement that I have read your analytical comments which I find full of insight and interesting. Much appreciated and let me just think a bit and then get back to you with my views and comments on these important issues. I do understand that what we all want is that Wikipedia provides a full bodied and truthful resource, the ultimate source for information. Will get back to you with more thoughts within the next couple of days, thanks!! Figgep (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledgement. (I removed the 3 colons before your reply: you get to stay at the margin.) Don't forget you can sign your unsigned replies after the fact by clicking on edit on this page and doing the four tildes (~) next to number 1 on keyboard. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@IiKkEe Just thanked you and wrote a few comments and questions on the testicle talk page (do you get notice when I do that?). Will continue to try and understand how to "read" the view history function so that I better can see what people change and if they add any comment as to why they change/modify my additions. Will also continue to add to new pages and go through the ones I have added to. Do you have group discussions with people like IdreamofJeanie, LT Tom, Iztwoz and so? Figgep (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that, by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.  (for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see WP:MEDDEF)
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS). High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please be aware that predatory publishers exist - check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead, that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) More generally see WP:MEDHOW
 * 6) Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 7) We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 8) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities.
 * 9) Do not use URLs from your university library's internal net: the rest of the world cannot see them.
 * 10) Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article.
 * 11) Please format citations consistently within an article and be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books; see WP:MEDHOW for how to format citations.
 * 12) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 13) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not link like this "Based on patient survival data displayed in the Pathology Atlas, one of the top genes associated with poor prognosis is C-Met." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have added here with better formating. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages on Wikipedia

 * @Figgep It's me again. I have read your above comments and may be able to help you a bit more with WP ways. Are you familiar with the "View history" tab, top, 3rd from the right? Click on it at look at your entries, then reply here that you've looked, and ask me anything you wish that comes to mind about it, and I'll answer and also give you some tips. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Figgep...and again. I pasted here he 12 relevant edits that you will find at View history. User:Iztwoz and User:IdreamofJeanie have been coming along after you and deleting what WP does not allow, and the reason (with one exception: IdreamofJeannie apparently forgot at 14:29) If an explanation is insufficient for you to understand why they did what they did, message them on Talk.

(cur | prev)08:09, 19 September 2017‎ Iztwoz (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (41,824 bytes) (-1)‎. . (→‎Gene and protein expression: typos) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 08:07, 19 September 2017‎ Iztwoz (talk | contribs)‎. . (41,825 bytes) (-702)‎. . (Rm repeated information and merged rest to its own section) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 07:53, 19 September 2017‎ Figgep (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (42,527 bytes) (+2,126)‎. . (Added a paragraph "Genes and proteins expressed in primary cell types" with brief text + appropriate references to source of information. As proposed on the talk page.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 16:54, 15 September 2017‎ KolbertBot (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (40,401 bytes) (+4)‎. . (Bot: HTTP→HTTPS) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:33, 14 September 2017‎ Iztwoz (talk | contribs)‎. . (40,397 bytes) (+21)‎. . (→‎Gene and protein expression: WL) (undo | thank). (cur | prev) 19:26, 14 September 2017‎ Iztwoz (talk | contribs)‎. . (40,376 bytes) (+128)‎. . (→‎Gene and protein expression: changed external link to ref) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 15:14, 14 September 2017‎ Figgep (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (40,248 bytes) (+32)‎. . (added a few internal links) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 15:05, 14 September 2017‎ Figgep (talk | contribs)‎. . (40,216 bytes) (+1,653)‎. . (added a brief paragraph on gene expression landscape that is a fundament for testicle anatomy, histology and normal function) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 17:08, 13 September 2017‎ Jarble (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (38,563 bytes) (+381)‎. . (→‎External appearance: adding a reference) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 14:29, 13 September 2017‎ IdreamofJeanie (talk | contribs)‎. . (38,182 bytes) (-2,295)‎. . (Undid revision 800428229 by Figgep (talk)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 13:51, 13 September 2017‎ Figgep (talk | contribs)‎. . (40,477 bytes) (+2,295)‎. . (Added a new subheading "Expression of genes and proteins" under the "Structure" heading, with text describing the gene expression landscape in testicles + references) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 20:10, 12 September 2017‎ Iztwoz (talk | contribs)‎. . (38,182 bytes) (-1,929)‎. . (Undid revision 800260035 by Figgep (talk)rm out of place cut and paste info and likewise external link) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 12:00, 12 September 2017‎ Figgep (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (40,111 bytes) (+1,929)‎. . (Added brief description of proteins expressed in human testis with emphasis on testis specific genes + references + one external link to testis histology) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

Regards IiKkEe (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi IiKkEe, thanks for your help in trying to make me understand this world a bit better! I appreciate it! So firstly, this is the correct place to write an answer/comment to your two comments on 1) if I had used "View history" and 2) the 12 relevant edits that you pasted for me to see !? (and answering without double colons, correct!?). So, all what is discussed right here should be limited to the "Testicle" wiki page, for more personal questions, I write on peoples own talk pages (?) So, for view history, yes I do look at that but still have a hard time really seeing there what exact people have modified and if there is any comment as to why someone has modified. I have, however, looked at the latest version of the "testicle" page and I think it works (content is good, but I would have used the other words/language that I had from the beginning), Question: should references in the reference list be given twice, i.e. can´t the same ref number be used in the text several times and only point to one entry in the ref list? (as now 8 and 10 are same / 9 and 12 are same) Figgep (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

, I appreciate the time you've taken to learn our ways :). I can see you're having some difficulty/confusion with talk pages (I keep an eye on most anatomy articles)... we talk a lot here, sometimes more than editing, as we care very deeply about the quality of articles. Discussion almost always occurs on "Talk" pages. Some general pointers:
 * If you want to discuss about a particular article (Even with a single editor), that discussion is best had on the article's "talk" page. This discussion stays on the talk page and can be viewed by other editors and future editors
 * If you want to talk with a particular editor (eg about editing styles, for help or collaboration), then it's best on the editor's talk page
 * If you want to talk about more than one article at once, that's best had at a central venue. Wikiproject Anatomy is probably most suitable as you're mostly editing anatomy articles. This lets other interested editors weigh in.
 * There are lots of other venues for discussion (eg the Village pump, Request for comment, etc.) but the above are the ones I've found most useful when I started editing.

Hope that helps, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Great, helps alot, thank you!! Very good to know. Just a few things on the same matter.....I mainly use my own talk page to receive messages from others? and when I answer others I answer on my own talk page? (like what I am doing now) and Do you user Tom (LT) get notified when I have answered/commented? or do I write special Tom (LT), or the @ symbol before your username?

Firstly, I will focus on normal organs and tissues, which belongs well to anatomy (and histology), will also want to write about cells in a tissue context and on the disease side I will center on cancer. Moreover, I would want to contribute to the gene/protein pages that are on wiki, but since that is such a large number, it needs some more thinking before, as for now just testing on a few. Figgep (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * pings me. I only get notified when you ping me, but because I have some pages on my watchlist I can see whenever an edit is made to the page or its talk page.
 * It is great to have a new editor but we all run into the same problem when we start (me too) which is that you need to use reliable sources for anything biomedical, otherwise your edits will get reverted. I will tell you this now in advance, because it is always a problem one encounters when starting off here, particularly when one starts editing content. A reliable source is a secondary or tertiary source from a reputable origin, and ideally created recently (ie in the past 5-10 years). It is not a primary source (ie a single study, however reputable). Happy writing, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * , so you see my response....Thanks and I understand that there will be challenges adding to wiki pages, but will do my very best. I would expect nothing less than that all biomedical (i.e. scientific) entries only include information from reliable sources, and agree that other text that is not based on reliable sources should be reverted (rejected). The key issue is of course what is sufficient to be considered "a secondary or tertiary source from a reputable origin". To keep this within my sphere of what I want to add, which is knowledge based on my experience as a pathologist and information available on the Human Protein Atlas, I will argue that this is NOT just from a primary source or results from a single study. The basic data regarding which genes are expressed in normal human organs and tissues is presented on the HPA and numerous peer reviewed articles have been published on subsets of this data + a summarizing paper in Science 2015 (most cited Science paper that year and with today >1200 citations). In addition, to the primary data provided by HPA, two very large and independent projects, GTEx at the Broad Inst. USA and Fantom 5 at Riken Inst., Japan, have reached extremely similar conclusions as to gene expression landscape in normal human tissue and organs. So, I think that the basic facts are really to be considered as of secondary and/or tertiary source. Perhaps I should reference to both of these databases and a publication where all three sources of data are compared? I hope you agree with me that the writing I am adding is based on reliable information and in my mind I am sure that it will be in all textbooks in ten years or so.

Best! Figgep (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Figgep You are right: I should have responded to you here, not on the Testicle Page. I will transfer it here. I have read the above that you wrote to Tom (LT): IMO those sources you mentioned are not primary. They are compilations of primary sources which makes them secondary sources. If anyone claims they are primary, bring them to the Talk page and debate it: others can weigh in. Regarding viewing what others have changed about your edits: when you click on "View history", then click on the open circle on the left which will change it to a bullet; then click on the date. That will bring up 2 screens: on the left is everything from the previous edit that was deleted; and on the right, everything that was added to the "new" edit at that point. I find this to be very useful. When I begin shepherding an Article, I check it every few days by going to View history, look back to my last edit, and compare the "current" edit aat that moment to each next edit, and keep clicking "next" from that  page until I get to the Latest version. If I agree with the edit, I click "Thank"; if I disagree, I don't "Thank" and take it to the Talk page. If I don't do it right away, the "thanked" tag tells me later which edits I have already agreed with. Try it! IiKkEe (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again IiKkEe, I am beginning to make good use of the "View history" possibility to view and follow what has happened on a page. It also gives a good feeling as to how "popular" certain pages are. Figgep (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Figgep Transfer complete -see above. I forgot to respond to the question about the same reference being used repetitively. When you have the need to use a ref a 2nd time, just copy and paste it -and change the page number used in each reference. (All refs should have a page #.) The WP computer takes it from there.


 * Regarding "popularity" - there are two kinds. One is "Is it being actively edited" ? That's what you are referring to. Equally interesting to me is the question "how many views per day or month is the Article getting? That is available by clicking at the top of "View history" before the list of edits: second from the right "Page view statistics". It's amazing to me that people by the thousands all over the world view what you and I write! An example - avg monthly hits to Testicle: 50,000! Anther one that's fun to look at is "Revision history statistics" - same line over to the left. It gives the top 20 editors by # of edits ,and by Bytes added. I am the number 1 contributor by # of edits, and I just started 2 days ago: lots of little edits, not much content to speak of. There are other interesting graphs there going back to the time of the article's inception. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Just amazing, been clicking around looking at different stats and other meta data, thanks for pointing this out! Figgep (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

COI
As you have a COI please stop adding your site to the EL section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Doc James, but I think there must be some misunderstanding. I have no COI, the Human Protein Atlas is not MY site! I have no salary, no honorariums, no grant money, no support or benefits of any kind from the Human Protein Atlas. I am an ordinary government working physician and researcher, with salary from my university and hospital. I wish to contribute with my expertise to various public service type of educational internet pages such as Wikipedia pages. I do this on my own free time without any thanks or other positive earnings that would present a COI. So, please let me continue with the mission I have freely undertaken and I am happy to discuss any scientific matters that aim to empower the knowledge-based pages that we have a mutual interest to improve. I feel confident that doctors, clinical and basic researchers as well as people with a general interest into how our body works, what a particular cancer is etc., will appreciate user friendly access to knowledge as presented on the Human Protein Atlas and therefore as a first step I want to add an external link to the appropriate corresponding page for each cancer type where there is such a page. Fuerther on I also wish to contribute with a few summarizing sentences and relevant links to source of information. Thanks for helping me understand how all this works! Figgep (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You state "I am Clinical Director and co-founder of the Human Protein Atlas project" on your talk page. You are one of the founders. So NO you must stop adding these links to the external links section until you get consensus. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, so I do not think that I am in a situation in which I am involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt my motivation or decision-making regarding my wish to spread knowledge from my experience and what is available at the Human Protein Atlas. How do I get consensus? How can I contribute to Wikipedia? Figgep (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From my understanding Doc James mostly has issue with you adding a link to the "external links" section. I agree that this is undue promotion on almost all pages. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I hear what you both say and although I don´t agree, if both of you say so I will not add anymore external links to the Human Protein Atlas. Hopefully there are many many more people who would appreciate an easy link to the HPA database and hopefully someone else will add it in the future. Figgep (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Warning
You added it again.

This is your final warning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a bit surprised by the harsh tone, uncalled for! I thought you did not agree to me adding the specific external link to the corresponding knowledge-based chapters at the Human Protein Atlas for specific organ pages and cancer pages! Not that I had been explicitly forbidden to add a general link to the Human Protein Atlas starting page on subject pages where such a link should fit well! If you have so decided, I will never add another external link to anywhere without asking for permission. Is it to you I should seek such permission? Figgep (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to get permission from the wider community not from me. Yes it would be appreciated that you not add any external links anywhere to your site without explicit consensus. Yes this message is harsh in that we need to get your attention at this point. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Figgep, you appear to be editing Wikipedia solely to promote your website, whether it's text material or material being added to the External links section. You are also causing cleanup issues; I've seen that Iztwoz has cleaned up after some of your additions. Did you truly consider what Boghog stated in the discussion at the Human brain talk page about your website?


 * Jytdog is a medical editor who has serious concerns about WP:COI editing; so I'm going to ask him to weigh in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Working in Wikipedia
Figgep I am responding to the ping. I think there are a few of things you are not understanding about Wikipedia. Let me see if I can lay them out quickly for you:
 * Wikipedia is a fucking miracle. (the language is crass on purpose).  Really.  It is a miracle.  Everything that is good here, is the result of people doing what they should do, voluntarily, a lot.
 * People can do a lot of things -- people can (and do) write "cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow cow." People can and do advertise their companies and products, quite blatantly.  Academics can and do come here and just add citations to their own papers and websites.
 * All of that is abuse of Wikipedia. (I looked at your edits, and literally all you have done, is toot your own horn.  I could show you contribs from ten other academics who have done the same.  It is just a sad thing and it is not different from a Pfizer rep coming here, and adding links to their website for some drug.  It ... is... no... different).  All of that, is like people going into a national park and plastering posters all over the trees.
 * Wikipedia is open - that is its radical nature, and something the editing community is deeply committed to. We are also committed to the mission - to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, for free.


 * Ideologically, the way this place works and thrives, is in the tension between a libertarian ethos that says "Be bold! Do stuff!" and a communitarian ethos, that keeps us accountable to each other, and to the mission.   Let either side of that go, and this place dies.  You have to deal with both, all the time.  There are fewer more important words here than "Stop and get consensus for what you are doing".  Individual initiative and effort that respects WP:CONSENSUS is what makes this place possible.


 * The policies and guidelines that govern us, were put in place by us, over the past 16 years (they are the written expression of enduring consensus on fundamental matters). You are obligated to learn and follow them. You are one of us.


 * Deep in the guts of the policies and guidelines, is the notion that we generally find "accepted knowledge" in sources that are secondary, independent, and high quality. That is the epistemology of Wikipedia.  It is hard for practicing scientists to wrap their heads around this.   But such sources are the only authority here in Wikipedia.  And what we do, is summarize them.


 * It may be that the community agrees with you that your Protein Atlas is very valuable for Wikipedia, and should be considered a "reliable source" and used widely, and you will get blessing to use it widely.  But what people have asked you several times, is to go get consensus for that. That is what you should do to continue being bold and doing what you want, but with consensus.  If you don't know how to do that, or where to ask, then please ask for guidance. (we talk all the time!!)   But if you keep adding it without getting that prior consensus, you are going to get indefinitely blocked. (that is what we do, when people keep wasting other people's time.  We all have work to do)  Losing you would suck for everyone, but if that is the path you take, that is the path you take.


 * And please consider contributing more broadly, and citing other people. Please ask yourself why you have not done that... really ask.

That's all. You can see User:Jytdog/How for a more elaborated version of the above, that describes how Wikipedia really works. You can reply here, if you want to discuss any of that, or ask any questions. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest WT:MED as a possible venue to discuss the Protein Atlas website. — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thank you User:Jytdog! I have read what you wrote a couple of times and you you are absolutely right and I agree.


 * Will say that it is not an easy start here, coming from the more ordinary daily life of a researcher trying to spread discoveries, results and insights to the world through peer reviewed publications. Thanks for taking the time to clearly spell out these differences and I am sure there have been many before me doing the same thing, in good faith but missing the heart and soul of Wikipedia.


 * I think it is natural to want to contribute with in the field one feels most confident in, and as such also write things that one feels are important insights and news still missing in various entries. For me that has been within the broader field of pathology and more specifically trying, as you all have noticed, to empower relevant entries with what I find exciting and important insights as to how our normal body works (and what cancer is), such as it is presented in the Human protein Atlas. I realize that this is what every scientist/researcher would think about the projects they work with......just got so enthusiastic when I saw that these parts of information (and links to the Human Protein Atlas) were missing in Wikipedia. I have actually also done a few small pure "pathology-mind" edits and cited others than our work, and of course there is lots more that can be made to improve quality, but again, I firstly wanted to add HPA knowledge to all the pages where this felt relevant.


 * I agree, Wikipedia is a fucking miracle and if it works it really has to stand strong and succeed with the balance between libertarian and communitarian ethos (never heard those words before, but I get the idea). As everyone else on this planet I have been using Wikipedia every now and then, but it was first recently I actually checked some entries when discussing with my medical students on sources of reliable knowledge and how to value textbooks-journals-internet-wikipedia, and then realized that wikipedia can be an absolute source of both content rich and trustworthy information (at least within evidence-based scientific entries). This made me want to contribute from my field of expertise.


 * I will seek consensus, and thanks also User:PaleoNeonate for pointing me to where such can be discussed and hopefully reached. I am sincere in when I say that I think the Human Protein Atlas is a fantastic resource for the community (independent that I once was a co-founder of the project that has developed to what it is today) and I will gladly try to convince you all about its benefits, its status as beyond primary source and value to both add facts from and cite with links. Will start on such a discussion next week or so. (one does not really understand all this talk that goes on behind the curtains)


 * Finally, I am a bit confused and I really do not want to get blocked indefinitely, neither do I want to waste peoples time.....I do feel I have valuable knowledge to contribute with and in a not too distant future also more time. As for adding external links to the Human Protein Atlas, I will of course seek consensus. Is it the wish of this community that I seek consensus for any edit/entry that I wish to make where I mention and/or cite any form of results or knowledge that is based on HPA? Should I seek consensus for all edits I wish to do independent what it is, now that I have a threat of being blocked indefinitely hanging over me? I am happy to discuss any questions related to this, so thank you for taking the time! Figgep (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. Wonderful.  About the last "indefinitely blocking" bit...  all kinds of humans show up in Wikipedia -- some who are very stubborn and some who are willing to learn.  People who stick to their guns and keep doing the wrong thing create content that others need to clean up, and generate endless discussion because other editors keep trying to explain what is wrong about what they were doing and what the right thing is, and sometimes people just won't listen and learn.  At some point we just say "enough".   That does not appear to be the road you are going to take, which is happy.
 * Now, with regard to the Atlas. Before you go and try to get consensus, some advice about that.
 * First, I hope you did read The Jytdog/How page, and especially the overview of the policies and guidelines. That bit provides a very high overview but what it is trying to show is the way that the policies and guidelines all hang together; -- what makes this miracle possible is that we require everything to be sourced, and both the content and the WEIGHT that is given to each bit of content follows the sources.  So sources are very important  - they have the authority when it comes to content, not what some editor says).  We spend a lot of time thinking about sources.  The general guideline for sources is WP:RS and for biomedical content, it is WP:MEDRS.  We in the biomedical sciences field are lucky within Wikipedia because our literature is inherently structured.   As a scientist in that field I think it would make total sense to you that a review in NEJM would be more authoritative (generally) than a "comment" letter published in an OMICS journal.
 * So when you explain what the protein atlas is, please keep in mind what RS and MEDRS say about sourcing; those are the criteria that we use to decide.
 * Please also provide an example of how you want to use it. (that is best done with a "diff" like this diff) ("diff" is explained at Help:Diff)


 * And let me end by saying that we are all grateful for your interest in Wikipedia. We love having subject matter experts contribute - folks like you can see very quickly where there is a big hole in an article, or where some section has gotten expanded way beyond its appropriate WEIGHT and should be trimmed, or where some section has fallen out of date.  Knowing the literature already, experts can also quickly put their hands on the best sources with which to generate content.  Sometimes experts just quickly pop in and post a reference on the Talk page of an article, when in the course of their work they come across a reference that would be great and are too busy to actually use it.   Experts do sometimes have a hard time understanding that working in Wikipedia is really different on a bunch of levels from pretty much any kind of scientific work they have ever done.  Some experts have been the most stubborn of all new editors and just would not adapt.   We have a little essay to help experts get oriented - it is at WP:EXPERT.  Worth a read.
 * OK, I have blathered on far too long. Good luck to you, and I and the other folks who have written to you here will be happy to help you get oriented and answer any specific questions you have.... Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Inactive WikiProject Anatomy participant
Hi Figgep, you're receiving this message because you were previously listed at WikiProject Anatomy as a participant, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 years.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the participant list, so that we stop spamming you with newsletters and have a better idea of who to contact for active discussions. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting here when you become active again.

Thank you, and all the best on your WikiVoyages! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)