User talk:Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz

The article Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I draftified this. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about yourself

It is usually a bad idea in wikipedia. Please see WP:COI. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS

You are continuing to add unreliable content to Wikipedia. Don't. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed adding citations to my papers. However, I consider that they are fully reliable. They publications were cited by others numerous times. Please note that my publications have been already cited over 43,000 times and my h-index is 104: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=olM19WIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Over 20 of my papers have been cited 300 times or more each, which formally makes them "citation classics". I agree with you that only reliable citations should be included. Unfortunately in the areas in which I am quite confident I noticed that there is a lot unreliable citations. I would be glad to help in expanding Wikipedia and I thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zbigniew you are misinterpreting the word "reliable". This is a technical term here in Wikipedia. A "reliable" source for content about health is defined in WP:MEDRS and a "reliable" source for other content is defined in WP:RS.

Your citing of your own papers is also problematic with regard to WP:SELFCITE. Please read that and abide by it.

If you have any questions about MEDRS or SELFCITE please ask, but you cannot simply ignore them. We are very happy to have you here in WP but you need to engage with the policies and guidelines that the community has established over the past 16 years. Every time you save an edit, you agree to follow the policies and guidelines - it is a condition of having edit privileges here, which we all must abide by. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Citing my publications I indeed have a conflict of interest. However, I am citing only such papers that were already cited numerous times by others and the data were confirmed and further expanded. These specific topics do not have yet large reviews. Definitely, especially with respect o medical literature one should be extremely cautious and in this case predominantly reviews should be cited. Thank again Zbig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here, and are as basic as "please" and "thank you".

In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} 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 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. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and 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) 22:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for replying but you are not actually dealing with MEDRS and SELFCITE. If you continue adding citations to your own papers either a) when they do not meet the criteria of MEDRS or b) after someone else has removed them, you will end up having your editing privileges restricted or you might be blocked from editing. We are very happy to have you but nobody is above the policies and guidelines here. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

":"Thanks. I stopped adding the citations to my papers. I will read carefully MEDRS and will delete some citations if "unreliable" according to your definition. Best regards. Zbig ~~~~

Hyaluronic acid

It appears you may be adding references to your own publications to articles. You also seems to be ignoring what people tell you about the WP:MEDRS guideline. Please don't continue this; ask for assistance if necessary. Otherwise you are risking a block per WP:COI. "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted." Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: the WP:REFSPAM has continued beyond this warning e.g.[1]. I've had a go at clearing some up, but if it goes on much longer it risks becoming a real burden to the project. @Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz: - STOP spamming references to your work into Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz (June 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for academics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No indication of notability. Reads like a resume. Need to see sources about the subject, not by the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Userpage

In this edit, you published the article you have been drafting about yourself, Draft:Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz, on your userpage. This is a violation of the userpage policy, linked above. Please remove that content; if you don't I will nominate it for deletion. Sorry, but you cannot use your userpage this way. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pasted comment below, that was left at my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page you asked me to delete will be changed, likely to become OK Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do that soon, before you do other stuff. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued WP:COI editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

With this June 12 edit at Resveratrol you have continued to add reference to your own work to our articles, contrary to the warning I issued above. If this resumes you may be permanently blocked from Wikipedia. People who edit here are expected to follow our policies. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Cutesolar may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Shadowowl was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

An Google search is not an source.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

» Shadowowl | talk 14:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

: I fully agree with the statement that the Google citation (single) is not an adequate evidence, to be accepted in Wikipedia. However, in this case, with the single link I was providing to hundreds of citations, (often across several years) to the particular reference of my paper. In summary I have over 44,000 citations of my papers, nearly each confirming my finding. In my opinion this is a reliable evidence of a widely accepted value of this my reference, often cited in the reviews.Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz has been accepted

Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the constructive changes. They clearly improved the page. I will try to still improve it once I know now the principles of page creation. I thank you very much, Zbigniew 64.118.223.196 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Now that the article is published, you need to stop editing it directly.

Please read and follow WP:COI

Hello, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

Thank you. These were very minor changes addressing inaccuracies. Nothing new was added or removed. Thanks, Zbyszek Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing the article directly. Please. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Zbyszek Darzynkiewicz‎ 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—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.

You are making it very clear that you intend to use Wikipedia as a personal website, and are edit warring to restore content that you like.

This article is not your personal webpage. See WP:NOTWEBHOST which is policy. You should not be directly editing the article about yourself, per WP:COI.

You are not using the Talk page at all.

Please change how you are behaving at the article. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Indeed, as a novice I thought that making changes on the page is OK because if the Editors have a possibility to remove it is OK. Sorry. Thanks for your help. Since the Research Highlights" section was totally removed because the lack of secondary citations, I was adding the citations therefore with Google Scholar Matrix information pertaining the number the paper was cited. I realize now that I should do it on the TALK page - I am sorry, I did not know how to do it - just learning (and admiring work of the Editors, who have to think about each even small item. Best regards, ZbyszekZbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be an enormous help would be if you could summarize, neutrally, the overview of your contributions in the 2004 Cell Cycle article. I have wanted to circle back and do that and have not had time. If you are interested in doing, please post it on the Talk page in a new section. Please be sure only to summarize what those authors said about your work. (an interesting discipline/challenge for you!) That would be great. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)::Thanks. I will try to do it as you suggest. It may take it a while. All the best, ZbyszekZbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Your photo

Here is standard advice given to people who want to upload a photo:

If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the advice. I am going to ask for the permission for the photo.Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

The next time you directly make a self-promotional edit to any article in Wikipedia, I will move to have you banned from this site.

With all of your knowledge and experience you have not done anything here other than suck up volunteer's time with your self-promotion. Please stop directly editing, please stop creating new drafts about yourself. It would be great if you could actually contribute to content here, but if all you want to do is edit about yourself DO NOT DO IT DIRECTLY. MAKE REQUESTS ON TALK PAGES. This is the last time I am saying this to you. If I write here again, it will be informing you that I have initiated the motion. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC):I am sorry - my mistake. From now on I will not be adding anything about myself.Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rob Darzynkiewicz

Hello, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Rob Darzynkiewicz, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Rob Darzynkiewicz to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, You are correct. Please delete this page. All the best Zbigniew

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]