User talk:Hedgehogsrock

October 2018

Hello, I'm Dan Koehl. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Young blood transfusion— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Hedgehogsrock. I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. I am not an administrator. Your edits to date are promotional with respect to Young Blood Institute. Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages conflict of interest. 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.

Hello, Hedgehogsrock. 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. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. 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. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

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. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Young Blood Institute, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it, and if you are editing for pay or the expectation of being paid, you must disclose that. After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant 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) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Blood Transfusions

I see many discrepancies and inaccuracies in this content. I will be correcting it with new content in the next few days. Hedgehogsrock (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my note above, before you do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Blood Transfusion

Hi, I work for the doctor mentioned on this page (Dipnarine Maharaj, MB ChB (Glasg.), MD. (Glasg.), FRCP (Edin.), FRCP (Glasg.), FRCPath., FACP), though he is inaccurately referred to as Dipnarine Maharaj. I have no connection to the Young Blood Institute, and neither does Dr Maharaj. My intention is simply to correct the inaccuracies on the page, which is also unbalanced. One of the main inaccuracies is that these transfusions do not use blood, but blood plasma, which is very different. I would like to balance the page by using more clinical study references that show both sides to this subject. I'm not sure how to do this without being in a war! Is there somewhere I can post an updated version for review?

Thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehogsrock (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just saw this. Would you please clarify your job? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I work with Dr Maharaj as a Patient Navigator. He is incorrectly described as working for the Young Blood Institute, but actually works for the South Florida Bone Marrow/Stem Cell Transplant Institute - a completely separate entity. Thanks. --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No he is described as running the trial which is supported by this ref. "But the Florida physician running the trial, Dr. Dipnarine Maharaj, said the final price tag is still being discussed in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration and is likely to change."[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Maharaj has no connection with the Young Blood Institute. The trial he is working on is still seeking approval and there is no price tag on it. The number of the trial on clinicaltrials.gov is NCT03458429, which clearly shows his name and place of work. Please check the changes I made as regards to the Young Blood Institute and Mark Urdahl. It is factually correct.

No one said he did. Please stop trying to change the page until you understand what we do here, and how we do it - you are going to end up blocked if you keep on doing what you have been doing. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for disclosing that you are a patient navigator in the clinic where Maharaj works. So this means that you have a conflict of interest here in Wikipedia. Please do read the message above at User_talk:Hedgehogsrock#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia, and then please reply and let me know that you read it. I will then explain what you should do as a conflicted editor, and then I will explain how we generate content here. The content you have been adding is not OK here - please do wait to try again until you understand. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the link regarding COI. I understand the importance of following the correct procedure, so can you let me know what I should do next? Thanks. --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll open a new section below on what you should do next... Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit this page?

Hi,

I have quite a few sourced edits to add to this page, but I'm not sure how to go about doing it. Is there anyone who can review what I have done and help with this?

Thanks, --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Hedgehogsrock, 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 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. zchrykng (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hedgehogsrock please be mindful of this! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting 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 as Zchrykng noted above, 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 when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working in Wikipedia with a conflict of interest

Thanks for your for disclosing that you work for work for Dipnarine Maharaj. So you have a COI for him and his clinic and related topics, as we define that in Wikipedia.

After it is clear that you understand the "ground rules" here I will be happy to discuss the content you want to change, but first things first.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Hedgehogsrock - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work for Dr. Dipnarine Maharaj who administers young blood transfusions and I have a conflict of interest with regard to those topics" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about Maharaj, the clinic or treatment, or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

Another editor added a tag at Talk:Young blood transfusion, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page (again, this is already done at Young blood transfusion); and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please read User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the young blood transfusion article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Please do reply here, just below this. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense! And I am happy to follow the peer review process. Thank you. I have added a paragraph to my own page re the COI and I will now try to make the changes in the way you explained. Thank you for your help! --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. The content you added to your userpage was promotional; I fixed it.

Please make sure you have read user:Jytdog/How so that you understand what we do here, how we do it, and why we do things that way. Please make sure you get all the way through the "policies and guidelines" section.

There are some additional things we look for with respect to content about health, namely:

Content making health claims (even about research) need to be sourced per WP:MEDRS - that means literature reviewss in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies

For formatting citations, please see WP:MEDHOW which has very clear instructions.

For style matters, please see WP:MEDMOS (we don't use the words "patient" or "suffer" for example)

Good luck -- I will see you at the article talk page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. It is good to ask! Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 6)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No sources provided.

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 User:Hedgehogsrock/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Hedgehogsrock/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

―Abelmoschus Esculentus 00:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hedgehogsrock! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 00:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi Hedgehogsrock. Regarding my reply on my talk page, I've struck it out and would like to express my apology to you. To be honest, I've seen enough crap at AfC, and I thought you were one of the blatherskites. It turns out that I'm wrong. Hope you will not take it personally. Happy editing. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken! I was looking for help in editing the existing Young Blood page. I work with Dr Maharaj, who is mentioned on the page (which I declared already due to conflict of interest) and I just wanted to correct some things. When I tried to do it on the page, it was reversed - not sure what I'm doing wrong. --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hedgehogsrock/sandbox

Hello, Hedgehogsrock. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:Hedgehogsrock/sandbox.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]