![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Earlier, I added this study to the page published in Molecular Biology Reports.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11033-019-04656-3
The edit was just: "More recently, research has been done on IAPs, proteins that inhibit programmed cell death and are linked to cancer. A 2019 in-vitro study found that amygdalin inhibited the expression of genes which produced the IAPs Survivin and XIAP."
Within 3 minutes it was reverted by @ Bon Courage with the message "Not WP:MEDRS". To which I replied that Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Perhaps he hasn't heard of it, but he could have at least taken a few minutes to look it up. 3 minutes is barely enough time to read the change. So I reverted that revert.
Within 5 minutes it was reverted by @ Zefr with the message "Lab research, WP:MEDINVITRO, far too preliminary to be mentioned". I've added the change to the section mentioning three historical hypothesized mechanisms of action. This study is relevant because it is recent research introducing a new one. I made clear that this was an in-vitro study. And I consider myself a pretty fast reader, but even still it took me a good hour to read this study and relevant background information on relevant IAPs like Survivin. 5 minutes sounds too fast to even get through the abstract. I reverted that revert too.
Within 9 minutes, there was another revert from @ Bon Courage saying "Unreliable source, edit warring". Again, Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Its a peer-reviewed journal and part of the Springer network. It would be very helpful if you explained why you think its an unreliable source.
It is very frustrating to spend over an hour genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia's body of scientific knowledge, only to be immediately shot down by what seems like drive-by Wikipedia:Wikilawyering.
- Databased ( talk) 22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Earlier, I added this study to the page published in Molecular Biology Reports.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11033-019-04656-3
The edit was just: "More recently, research has been done on IAPs, proteins that inhibit programmed cell death and are linked to cancer. A 2019 in-vitro study found that amygdalin inhibited the expression of genes which produced the IAPs Survivin and XIAP."
Within 3 minutes it was reverted by @ Bon Courage with the message "Not WP:MEDRS". To which I replied that Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Perhaps he hasn't heard of it, but he could have at least taken a few minutes to look it up. 3 minutes is barely enough time to read the change. So I reverted that revert.
Within 5 minutes it was reverted by @ Zefr with the message "Lab research, WP:MEDINVITRO, far too preliminary to be mentioned". I've added the change to the section mentioning three historical hypothesized mechanisms of action. This study is relevant because it is recent research introducing a new one. I made clear that this was an in-vitro study. And I consider myself a pretty fast reader, but even still it took me a good hour to read this study and relevant background information on relevant IAPs like Survivin. 5 minutes sounds too fast to even get through the abstract. I reverted that revert too.
Within 9 minutes, there was another revert from @ Bon Courage saying "Unreliable source, edit warring". Again, Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Its a peer-reviewed journal and part of the Springer network. It would be very helpful if you explained why you think its an unreliable source.
It is very frustrating to spend over an hour genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia's body of scientific knowledge, only to be immediately shot down by what seems like drive-by Wikipedia:Wikilawyering.
- Databased ( talk) 22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)