User talk:Tl234

Welcome!
Hello, Tl234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Hematopoietic stem cell ‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE, WP:REFSPAM
Your contributions to date seem to be all about adding references to, a paper so new it is not even indexed in pubmed yet.

While we love experts here (see WP:EXPERT) we do not love experts who use their editing privileges to promote their own work, which is a violation of the policy against abusing WP for promotion. This is also considered a form of spam -- see WP:REFSPAM. Please also see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI.

We do love experts, and it would wonderful if you would consider contributing more broadly. But please, enough of the refspamming.

As EXPERT explains, we strongly prefer references like literature reviews to research papers. Please see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My contribution was an observation backed by 2 publications:
 * Recent studies have demonstrated that the endothelial protein Endomucin (EMCN) is a marker of murine and human HSCs, thus proofing the existence of HSC cell surface proteins conserved among different species.


 * Two groups have shown that EMCN is a marker for stem cells in human and mouse and published their work in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals.
 * This is probably the first stem cell marker that is conserved among different species.
 * Who decides whether these facts are promoted to a broader audience or not? You?Tl234 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying.  Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And you have this part down already, but at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.  That is how we know who said what to whom and when.


 * Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).


 * I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for replying. Would you please clarify if one of the two papers is yours?  That is what this thread is about.  We can talk about the content after we deal with conflict of interest. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am one of the co-authors of one of the papers. One group has shown something in mice, the other has done complementary work with human cells demonstrating that this is one of few (if not the only one) markers of HSCs conserved among species. This is a great finding, but without references, one cannot state these facts or is that would you prefer? Tl234 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for disclosing that. It is not uncommon for academics and other experts to come to Wikipedia to cite their own work.
 * Working in Wikipedia is not like writing a review paper, where it is OK to assemble a story from the research literature. The genre here is not "literature review" but rather "encyclopedia". The core principle here is that article are intended to reflect accepted knowledge, and the epistemology here is that we find accepted knowledge where experts in the field put it.  For biomedical information, that is recent literature reviews.
 * You know as well as anybody that many research papers are where scientists talk to one another. Some research papers are important and are built on; some turn out to be dead ends for one reason or another and some are even eventually retracted. This is why we rely on review papers, where experts in the field summarize the state of the field at any given time.
 * So please don't add content to Wikipedia using research papers (what we call "primary sources") and building a story from them. Instead please use recent literature reviews, and summarize what they say.
 * If you would like an overview of what we do here and why, please have a read of WP:EXPERT and perhaps also User:Jytdog/How.
 * I hope that makes sense to you.
 * If you insist that your research paper should be cited, please post at the article talk page and ask others, per WP:SELFCITE (part of our conflict of interest guideline). Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)