User talk:Jia.meng

Adding own Research Publications to Existing Articles
Dear Jia Meng, I recently found that you have made several edits to articles such as Fisher's exact test and added references and links to your own publications. I am not a senior editor so I am not entirely sure what the policy is regarding this, but I have a feeling it is problematic from a bias and NPOV perspective in regards to the relevance of the work you are including. Could you please share your opinion on this matter? -- Dront (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am not sure whether this is the way to communicate on wikipedia, you may Email me to: jmeng@mit.edu.
 * The fast algorithm for calculating log p-value of Fisher's exact test I added is part of a paper published on the journal bioinformatics, which is one of the best journals in computational biology and biostatistics (IF > 4).


 * Regarding citing one's own works, I guess it should be OK as long as the content you added is relavent to the wikipedia term and the technical content is solid. However, I also believe it is important to make the best effect by citing the most influencing or original work than your own work. It would be better to cite other people's papers in terms of neutrality; but considering the fact that most people are only expert in his/her own small field, it should be fine to cite one's own papers as long as the contribution is technical solid and relevant to the term. -- Jia.meng


 * You are always welcomed to point out any erros/slips in my contribution, and I guess you may edit the term directly as long as the content is properly referenced.


 * "I am not sure whether this is the way to communicate on wikipedia"
 * On the contrary, I think this is the way to communicate on Wikipedia. This way our conversation in preserved and can be referenced later on by other editors.
 * "test I added is part of a paper published on the journal bioinformatics, which is one of the best journals in computational biology and biostatistics (IF > 4)"
 * "but considering the fact that most people are only expert in his/her own small field, it should be fine to cite one's own papers as long as the contribution is technical solid and relevant to the :term."
 * I agree that the reputation of the journal is important to judge the quality of a reference (although I have my own beef with impact factors, but that is another story entirely). I don't have the time this morning to dig up all the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. But an encyclopedia doesn't necessarily cover the state-of-the-art or all aspects of a certain method. For this, one would expect a reader to refer to the scientific literature instead. I'll try to get back to this matter as soon as I have the time to find the relevant guidelines. For now, at least I have voiced some concern since I feel that we are somewhat in a grey area. -- Dront (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "but considering the fact that most people are only expert in his/her own small field, it should be fine to cite one's own papers as long as the contribution is technical solid and relevant to the :term."
 * I agree that the reputation of the journal is important to judge the quality of a reference (although I have my own beef with impact factors, but that is another story entirely). I don't have the time this morning to dig up all the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. But an encyclopedia doesn't necessarily cover the state-of-the-art or all aspects of a certain method. For this, one would expect a reader to refer to the scientific literature instead. I'll try to get back to this matter as soon as I have the time to find the relevant guidelines. For now, at least I have voiced some concern since I feel that we are somewhat in a grey area. -- Dront (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reputation of the journal is important to judge the quality of a reference (although I have my own beef with impact factors, but that is another story entirely). I don't have the time this morning to dig up all the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. But an encyclopedia doesn't necessarily cover the state-of-the-art or all aspects of a certain method. For this, one would expect a reader to refer to the scientific literature instead. I'll try to get back to this matter as soon as I have the time to find the relevant guidelines. For now, at least I have voiced some concern since I feel that we are somewhat in a grey area. -- Dront (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reputation of the journal is important to judge the quality of a reference (although I have my own beef with impact factors, but that is another story entirely). I don't have the time this morning to dig up all the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. But an encyclopedia doesn't necessarily cover the state-of-the-art or all aspects of a certain method. For this, one would expect a reader to refer to the scientific literature instead. I'll try to get back to this matter as soon as I have the time to find the relevant guidelines. For now, at least I have voiced some concern since I feel that we are somewhat in a grey area. -- Dront (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Truncated Gaussian.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Truncated Gaussian.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)