User talk:AlexanderPanossian

Welcome!

Hello, AlexanderPanossian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zefr (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Adaptogen, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. As a new editor, you would benefit from taking some time to read the style guide, WP:MOS, and the requirements for source quality, WP:MEDRS. Your entry makes numerous errors in style formatting, particularly inline referencing per WP:INCITE. Your content is mainly speculative and exaggerates the state of science. It appears your content has been copied from another source and pasted here; review WP:PLAG. You should acquire consensus before adding this material by beginning a Talk page discussion to see if other editors agree. Please don't edit war, WP:WAR. Zefr (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with technical issues associated with editing this page, which contains misleading information about adaptogens.

First of all who are you? Why you are Anonymous, Zefr? Perhaps a conflict of interests? Do you have any publication in this research area? It looks that your knowledge on adaptogens is very limited and wrong, e.g. the statement " The concept of adaptogens was originally created in 1947 " First publication where Lazarev have introduced the term adaptogen was published in 1958.

15. Lazarev NV. 1958. General and specific in action of pharmacological agents. Farmacol. Toxicol. 21: 81-86.

16. Lazarev NV, Ljublina EI, Ljublina MA. 1959. State of nonspecific resistance. Patol Fiziol ExperimTerapia. 3: 16-21.

Why you deliberately took a privilege to take under your control the content of this page, which discredit adaptogen concept in general and ignore most important publications. If you really want to create a wikipedia page which is in line with current state of art, you will not delete immediately several times the text, winch I provided to my assistant few weeks ago and now try to upload again.

The text which I want to upload I wrote myself based on long years experience as an Ex Editor in Chief of Phytomedicne and the author of many publications on adaptogens. Consequently, Your statement "Your content is mainly speculative and exaggerates the state of science. It appears your content has been copied from another source and pasted here" has no bases and sounds arrogantly.

I hope that really want to help me with the text below and references, particularly with my recent publication

Panossian AG, 2017. Understanding adaptogenic activity: specificity of the pharmacological action of adaptogens and other phytochemicals. Ann NY Acad Sci. 22 JUN 2017

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.13399/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.13399/pdf

I copied the above answer from the IP's talk page where you put it, for two reasons:

Zefr would have been unlikely to see your message at that place. It's best to reply at the page where you were left a message, or possibly at the talk page of the relevant article (Talk:Adaptogen).
Much of the rest that was posted on that talk page was closely paraphrased or copy-pasted from here in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy and possibly in violation of copyright itself. I'm aware the Wiley article is released under a Creative Commons license, but its CC BY-ND license is incompatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license Wikipedia required. I have thus deleted that IP talk page.

You should also take a look at WP:AGF and WP:NPA, our policies on assuming good faith and forbidding personal attacks. Many editors on Wikipedia use pseudonyms (no, I'm not really the fictional character after which I've named myself), and that's neither a reason to suspect that they don't know what they're talking about nor to suspect that they must have a conflict of interest. Maybe Zefr could give a specific instance of content they thought "exaggerates the state of science" at the article's talk page and you can discuss the merits of that content, in light of WP:MEDRS? (I'll note that "It appears your content has been copied from another source and pasted here" is correct since your content was taken from here and, indirectly, from the Wiley-published article; accusing others of arrogance for making a correct observation is not a good idea). Huon (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi AlexanderPanossian. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with regular editing. Your edits to date are all based on this paper, written by someone named Alexander Panossian, who works at a company called Europharma, which sells "adaptogen" products. Your username is the same as that author's name.

With respect to the WP:USERNAME policy, specifically WP:IMPERSONATE, would you please review that section and take one of the actions advised there? If you don't we may need to soft-block this account until the issue can be resolved. Thanks.

If you do happen to be the real world Alexander Panossian, I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below. This is a separate but possibly related issue to the one above.

Hello, AlexanderPanossian. 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.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. As mentioned above, you are editing here under the name of a real world person, and once we resolve the IMPERSONATE issues, that will be somewhat resolved, but we would still need you to explicitly declare your relationship with Europharma, if there is one. Would you please disclose any such relationship?

After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Anonymous.psy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]