User talk:Kavi17s
Welcome!
Hello, Kavi17s, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Content in Wikipedia; experts; COI[edit]
Hi Kavi17s
You seem to have a strong interest in GM-CSF, as all your contributions to date have been on that article. Please have a look at our article about "single purpose accounts" WP:SPA. Also, IF you have some relationship with the content and article that you keep trying to add to the article, please see our guidelines on such matters: writing about yourself and your work and please also see Wikipedia:Expert editors and the warnings there. We very much value experts here! But experts have special challenges too, as described in that Experts article I just pointed you to.
With regard to issues with the specific content you are adding... in general content in Wikipedia should be based on what we call secondary sources. For biological and biomedical information, this means a review article, or a statement by a major medical scientific body. As you know, the primary literature in the biological sciences is littered with dead ends. Even papers published in journals like Science, Nature, and Cell turn out to be not replicable. We only know if some finding is real, when other replicate it, and the finding is discussed in a review. So please refrain from adding content to Wikipedia based on original research papers, which we consider to be primary sources - the least reliable kind, and generally to be avoided. For more information on sourcing, please see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.