User talk:Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Institutdelavision. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to 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.

Please do take some time to review the information in the links above. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Username issue

Hi, I am sorry but you are going to have to change your Username.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Institutdelavision", does not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing this form, that complies with our username policy. Thank you.

Also, please see the note below... Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please note that I have reported your username [here] for review by a Wikipedia Administrator. – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)~~Resolved. Report self-reverted.19:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S. Rich the current username is perfectly fine as it signifies an individual unambiguously. See the notice above - X at Y is actually one of the examples. Their first username was not. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia/WP:PAID

Hi - so you clearly work for Institut de la Vision of which Pixium Vision is a spinout. If you want to edit here about institute or its spinouts, you need to mind our COI guideline and the WP:PAID policy. See notice below.

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 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.

Once you change your username, please reply here, just below this, and I can walk you through the COI management process here in Wikipedia. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added my conflict of interest, I do work for the Institut de la Vision but only collaborate with Pixium Vision without any paid contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk • contribs) 07:39, 14 June 2016‎ (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for replying! 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 - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia ("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) 07:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks for replying so quickly. Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry for the delay, I was called away for a minute. OK, replying now. Yes, understood that you do not receive payment from Pixium. Nonetheless, you have an external relationship with them. In Wikipedia, that relationship creates a conflict of interest -- you carry into Wikipedia a desire to help them thrive - to tell people about the cool stuff that they (and you) are doing. That was indeed the first thing you did when you got here. Do you acknowledge this? If so, we can consider your COI in Wikipedia declared, and we can move on to the peer review step of the process. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do acknowledge my COI, it is displayed on the Institut de la vision website^[1] and should have notified it here from the start. Regarding what I wrote, I'm sure your peer review process will also conclude that what we do is pretty cool stuff too :)

References

^ http://www.institut-vision.org/en/retinal-information-processing-pharmacology-and-pathology/item/163-paul-henri-prevot.html

Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming - just wanted to be sure we are on the same page on that - some folks draw fine fine lines. :) And yes I looked at what you are up to, and it too is cool.

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 editors to do who have a COI 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, 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 propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself, disclosing your COI when you do that.

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. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on 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. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I followed the b) process and hope that what I added to the Talk page will be good enough to be accepted by the community. Please let me know if I need to do anything to make sure this work can be read by everybody. Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have any idea on the time it will take for this article to be reviewed? Thanks in advance. Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. This is a volunteer organization. I can give you feedback on it if you want, but I hesitated to do that as I try to keep COI management (interacting with people) separate from interacting with those same people over content; things can get messy when they get mixed up. But if you would like me to, I will do. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to review the content I would be happy to get your feedback. I envisioned to put these paragraphes after the section 'Photovoltaic retinal prosthesis' from Pr Palanker as we collaborate with them ("PRIMA [3][4][5] is the sub-retinal micro photovoltaic system currently in pre-clinical phase licensed exclusively from Stanford University and being developed in collaboration with Prof Daniel Palanker’s group."). Thank you a lot! Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jutdog, did you have time to review the article in the talk of the visual prosthesis page? We would greatly appreciate your help. Paul-Henri. Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started to and then i got distracted. I will come back to it over the weekend! Thanks for following up. Jytdog (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, I also posted on your page, sorry for the stalking! Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jutdog, Sorry for contacting you again, have you had time to review the few paragraphs we wrote on the "visual prosthesis" page? We would appreciate if these paragraphs are added after the section Photovoltaic retinal prosthesis. Thank you again for your help. Paul-Henri Prévot de l'institut de la vision (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.institut-vision.org/en/retinal-information-processing-pharmacology-and-pathology/item/163-paul-henri-prevot.html

[1]