This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on March 2016 Tagishsimon.
Dcbennett2 (talk·contribs) has been paid by SciWri Services on behalf of Cellectis. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Paid editing declared here
I reverted a removal done by a user with a COI that works for a private company, the contribution highlighted a major advancement made by a team of scientists of Stanford University, I really think that a private user or even an admin cannot delete a contribution that (I am writing from Europe and have no COI whatsoever) has been done by a team of scientists at Stanford in decades of scientific work, is nonprofit, and is beneficial to know for the community of wikipedia users.-- Culturalresearch (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Culturalresearch, about this and this The claim in the 2nd instance is an overt violation of WP:PROMO as well as WP:OR - the source you have brought is WP:PRIMARY and editors cannot interpret or evaluate primary sources in Wikipedia. Also, we should wait for this to be covered by a review. And in any case there are 108 papers in pubmed about stem cells and engineered niches. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not a niche, it is a major finding, it is not an individual paper, it is an entire team from Stanford which I do not even personally know. What type of promotion is this? The mission of Wikipedia is to advance knowledge, and I just shared knowledge findings. Who are you to judge if this piece of information is not useful to the wikipedia community? Where is the promotion? The promotion of a free, open source, team of scientists finding? I think you should clear up your mind about what a promotion really is--Culturalresearch (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The paper is about stem cell niches. The claim that you wrote "This represents a major step towards future development of Stem cell application on therapies." is promotional of the research and unsourced/WP:OR. Promotion = saying how great it is. We get tons of that in WP when people hype basic science. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
To make this more clear, here is the text you added in this dif:
Current research is looking for therapeutic strategies for diverse genetic disorders involving transplantation of autologous stem cells that have been genetically corrected ex vivo. A major challenge in such approaches is a loss of stem cell potency during culture. Recent research found the possibility of engineering an artificial niche adapted to human cells that extended the quiescence of human MuSCs in vitro and enhanced their potency in vivo. This represents a major step towards future development of Stem cell application on therapies.
^Quarta, Marco; Brett, Jamie; Di Marco, Rebecca; Rando, Thomas (30 May 2016). "An artificial niche preserves the quiescence of muscle stem cells and enhances their therapeutic efficacy". Nature Biotechnology. doi:10.1038/nbt.3576.
Eurostemcell editathon at the University of Edinburgh MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi, looking to run a Eurostemcell editathon at the University of Edinburgh's MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine on 20th July. Can the edit protection be lifted for this page for our editors for the purpose of this event? The event page is here. Or is it a case of submitting the proposed change after our editors have drafted new text during the event? Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)