User talk:Lifescience2017

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of content about health here on Wikipedia, pursuing the mission of Wikipedia to provide the public with articles that present accepted knowledge, created and maintained by a community of editors.

One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board!

First, some basics about editing Wikipedia, which is a strange place behind the scenes; you may find some of the ways we operate to be surprising. Please take your time and understand how this place works. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Everything starts with the mission - the mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community of editors. (see WP:NOT)
We find "accepted knowledge" for biomedical information in sources defined by WP:MEDRS -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers, editorials, and popular media as sources for such content. We read MEDRS sources and summarize them, giving the most space and emphasis (what we call WP:WEIGHT) to the most prevalent views found in MEDRS sources.
Please see WPMED's "how to" guide for editing content about health
More generally please see The five pillars of Wikipedia and please be aware of the "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; these have been generated by the community itself over the last fifteen years, and you will need to learn them (which is not too hard, it just takes some time). Documents about Wikipedia - the "back office" - reside in "Wikipedia space" where document titles are preceded by "Wikipedia:" (often abbreviated "WP:"). WP space is separate from "article space" (also called "mainspace") - the document at WP:CONSENSUS is different from, and serves as a different purpose than, the document at Consensus.

Every article and page in Wikipedia has an associated talk page, and these pages are essential because we editors use them to collaborate and work out disagreements. (This is your Talk page, associated with your user page.) When you use a Talk page, you should sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment; the Wikipedia software will automatically convert that into links to your Userpage and this page and will add a datestamp. This is how we know who said what. We also "thread" comments in a way that you will learn with time. Please see the Talk Page Guidelines to learn how to use talk pages.

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. You can also just add our talk page to your watchlist and join in discussions that interest you. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note below if you have any questions or problems. I wish you all the best here in Wikipedia! -- Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

Please explain your relationship with the account, JStollar. Please be aware that operating more than one account is a violation of the WP:SOCK policy.

If both accounts are yours, you can fix the problem by:

simply acknowledging that both accounts are yours and you made a mistake creating the second one
stating which account you will use in the future, and only using that one
marking both accounts and stating that one is abandoned. (I can help you with this)

Please reply. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Jobell37. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date are all about about VBL Therapeutics. 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, Jobell37. 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.

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. 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 VBL, 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. 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) 22:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jytdog thanks for all the info! I just joined so I am still figuring out how all this works. I thought the info I gave was following all the rules. Sadly I actually worked really hard on it, and even cited peer reviews papers, so I thought it would be accepted! I didn't realize how complicated this is! I am a scientist in training but I would rather remain anonymous if possible. I would like to create more content as a hobby if it doesn't keep getting deleted. I started with this topic because am in a program where one of the projects is to identify a biotech company with a drug in development for a disease you are interested in and do research on the IP, etc. As you know John McCain recently was diagnosed with this disease so that's how I became interested in this topic. When I start a research project, I usually go to Wikipedia first, and in doing so I realized there wasn't much on this company's drug here. The other user you mentioned (JStollar) is not also me (not a double account) but my friend/partner on the project.

Is there a specific reason this was flagged? Let me know if you have any advice for my future posts, if I can make them! Thanks! B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobell37 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one thing at a time. It would be useful if you added something to your userpage (which is here -- User:Jobell37 -- a redlink, as you haven't written anything there yet -- like "I joined Wikipedia while working on a class project with User:JStollar - we're working on content about VB-111 by VBL Therapeutics" and your colleague should write the corresponding thing on their userpage. Please be aware of the WP:MEAT policy and be careful not to team-tag when other editors disagree with the two of you. (You haven't done that yet).

Next, when using a talk page like this (not when editing articles, and not on your own userpage) we thread comments by indenting, and we sign our posts. This is how we keep track of conversations and know who said what.

To thread, we indent. If you type one colon ":" at the start of your comment, the Wikipedia software creates one indent. Put two colons and software creates two indents, etc. When that gets crazy, we rest using {{od}} which creates an "outdent" but maintains the threading.

To sign, type exactly four tildas at the end of your comment, and the Wikipedia software will turn that into links to your user and talk pages, and a date stamp. OK.. Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the content, was that it was badly sourced and promotional, which is what made me wonder if you had some connection with the company.

For content about health, we source things per WP:MEDRS (which Doc James summarizes in his note below). For content about everything else, we source things per WP:RS, For "RS", think "New York Times" not "some blog". For biotech companies, trade rags like Fierce Biotech or Xconomy are OK; stay very far away from penny stock blogs like Seeking Alpha or the like.

For drug candidates we are very careful about saying stuff like "promising" or any kind of hype. Most drug candidates fail, as you probably know.

I am going to leave you our welcome message for new editors above - please be sure to review the information there, and in the links there.

I work on content about biotech companies a lot, so feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - thank you very for taking the time to review the content I added to Wikipedia and for responding to my comment in such depth. Apologies for not knowing Wikipedia protocols. I hope I have fixed it to your liking with this response. I have also added exactly what you suggested on my bio page. I would just like to address your comment about my content being badly sourced and promotional. Please consider my thoughts below and let me know if you still deem the content as inappropriate.

First, I would like to address the badly sourced comment. I’m unsure what you consider badly sourced from these 8 sources I cited. 1) After having learned a bit about this field, I believe nothing is more reliable than clinicaltrials.gov 2) I cited four articles from peer reviewed journals. The rules above from Wikiproject Medicine implied (when they said they usually site “literature reviews published in good journals”) that the journal should be a high-impact journal. I have a problem with this statement, as the impact factor of the journal should have no impact on the reliability of the data. The peer review process in an impact 3 journal is no different than the one in Nature. Further, primary journal articles are more reliable than any review, as they do not rely on the review-author’s interpretation of the already interpreted data. Any scientist knows that when you are citing data, you cite it right from the source, not from a review. So I believe these 4 sources should be more than acceptable. 3) Lastly, I cited 3 SEC articles. I can understand how these may be borderline, despite them being on a government website. Nevertheless, this website has been previously cited on Wikipedia for many other pharma companies, so there is precedent for it to be accepted now. My point with all of this is that I do not see how my information could be viewed as badly sourced, therefore I do not feel this is an acceptable reason to pull it down.

Next, I would like to address the fact that my writing seemed promotional. Could you please elaborate on this comment? I am referring to the paragraph right before where I tried to add mine, where there is information on a current drug candidate from another company (Tocagen). In my eyes, this is exactly what I wrote. Further, I didn’t cite anything that isn’t a fact, and I never said the word “promising” or implied anything like it. So I feel this analysis of my writing is a bit unfair.

Now that I’ve started this process, I’m trying to learn how to do it correctly, so I would very much like to produce something on this topic that could go up. I look forward to hearing your response! Thanks in advance!! Jobell37 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, Wikipedia is a heady brew of libertarian and communitarian ideologies - it would fall apart without boldness and without consensus.

This place works by what we call WP:consensus. The policies and guidelines are the product of long processes of consensus-building, across many articles and at the relevant policy or guideline page itself. And while they may seem like some blurry collection of dictates when you first encounter them, they actually all hang together in a way that is kind of profound.. they are what makes this rather insanely-conceived place possible.

Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is offered to everyone; everyone who edits Wikipedia has a concomitant responsibility to learn and follow community policies and guidelines. If someone refuses to learn and follow them, they eventually have their editing privileges restricted. Part of the Terms of Use that you agree to, every time you make an edit (see the small text just above the "save changes" button, as well as at the very bottom of this page and every page in Wikipedia, includes an obligation for you to understand and follow community policies and guidelines. Not just their letter, but their spirit.

Please be very mindful when you read them, of places where they say "should". Every time you edit, you can write anything. You can write "cows suck". People do this. Everything here that is good, happens because instead of doing that, people do what they should do. This is what Wikipedia is built on. Everyday people doing what they should do. It is kind of mind-blowing.

So MEDRS is the guideline for content about health. If you want to make a claim about what a drug does, you should use MEDRS sources for that. There are many, many reasons why MEDRS developed as it did. We explain some of them in WP:Why MEDRS? And you actually did have one -- PMID 21961496.

And as "Why MEDRS?" points out, and as perhaps better laid out on my user page here, relying mostly on what we call "secondary sources" is deep in the guts of Wikipedia, and again is something that makes this place possible.

The SEC sources as well as clinicaltrials.gov are not secondary sources -- they are what we call "primary" sources.

The content just above yours is bad. I will fix that. (There are lots of places where Wikipedia content is bad. People don't always catch it, when people show up here and add bad content)

I'll rebuild the content using PMID 21961496 and will see if I can find any secondary sources giving updated content on where they stand... Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Okay I finally think I understand. Thank you so much for your patience and pointing me to the exact sites to explain my confusion with the sources. I also now see the difference in what you wrote and what I had (both in terms of sources, as well as in the format in which I write about something to make it seem less promotional). I'm kind of hooked on this, I think I may try to edit something else soon using all these rules I've just learned to see how it goes! If I do, would it be alright if I contact you on your talk page before I post it to get your opinion on how it looks? Again, thank you so much for taking the time to write a new version of my content to show me how it's done. I really appreciate it. Jobell37 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and first fixed up Ofranergene obadenovec, then Toca 511 & Toca FC (which was a complete disaster - see the old version), then circled back to Glioblastoma#Gene_therapy. Feel free to ask me stuff anytime. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. 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) 19:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ProQR has been accepted

ProQR, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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!

» Shadowowl | talk 17:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of NeuBase Therapeutics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NeuBase Therapeutics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuBase Therapeutics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]