Potential conflict of interest
Hello, Jon33dn. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Article, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Examples
In particular, you have added a number of citations from the same research group to a number of articles:
- Beta barrel, Low-frequency collective motion in proteins and DNA; Protein secondary structure:
- Nickels JD, Perticaroli S, O'Neill H, Zhang Q, Ehlers G, Sokolov AP (2013). "Coherent neutron scattering and collective dynamics in the protein, GFP". Biophys. J. 105 (9): 2182–7. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2013.09.029. PMC 3824694. PMID 24209864.
- Low-frequency collective motion in proteins and DNA, Protein secondary structure:
- Perticaroli S, Nickels JD, Ehlers G, O'Neill H, Zhang Q, Sokolov AP (2013). "Secondary structure and rigidity in model proteins". Soft Matter. 9 (40): 9548. doi:10.1039/C3SM50807B.
- Beta barrel , Low-frequency collective motion in proteins and DNA , Protein secondary structure:
- Perticaroli S, Nickels JD, Ehlers G, Sokolov AP (2014). "Rigidity, secondary structure, and the universality of the boson peak in proteins". Biophys. J. 106 (12): 2667–74. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2014.05.009. PMID 24940784.
- Protein dynamics: Nickels JD, O'Neill H, Hong L, Tyagi M, Ehlers G, Weiss KL, Zhang Q, Yi Z, Mamontov E, Smith JC, Sokolov AP (2012). "Dynamics of protein and its hydration water: neutron scattering studies on fully deuterated GFP". Biophys. J. 103 (7): 1566–75. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2012.08.046. PMC 3471459. PMID 23062349.
You have also replaced the following citation with one of the above:
- Davis IW, Arendall WB, Richardson DC, Richardson JS (2006). "The backrub motion: how protein backbone shrugs when a sidechain dances". Structure. 14 (2): 265–74. doi:10.1016/j.str.2005.10.007. PMID 16472746.
Furthermore secondary sources (i.e., review articles) are preferred over primary. Even though primary sources may have been peer reviewed, secondary sources are generally preferred over primary because it is an independent verification that the source is notable, and is a second check as to the reliability of the conclusions as a disturbingly large number of research results cannot be reproduced. Boghog (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote the citations of your research group. If you disagree, the proper procedure is to suggest the citation be added to the article on the article's talk page. Boghog (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
3RR
Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Boghog (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)