User talk:HealthMonitor

This new first paragraph was put in on August 25, 2015 to add substance and data to the entry. The intention is to go through this site one section at a time, and add well-sourced factual data on all aspects of Cleveland Clinic that might be useful to Wikipedia users. I work for Cleveland Clinic and have taken it upon myself to edit its entry. I am a Wikipedia neophyte and look forward to help from the Wikipedia community and other editors who have already given this page such thoughtful consideration.

Reference errors on 26 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Cleveland Clinic page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, HealthMonitor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Cleveland Clinic. 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.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), 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 ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Cleveland Clinic[edit]

File permission problem with File:Glickman-tower.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Glickman-tower.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gparyani (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Crile Building.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Crile Building.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About those images[edit]

Lovely images - thanks for your attempt to share them.

You say that you are getting these images from http://onbrand.clevelandclinic.org. You indicated that you thought these were from a press kit, and yes, on Wikipedia, we allow fair use images from press kits.

However, see the text at http://onbrand.clevelandclinic.org/copyright/ - "You may only print one single copy of any of the materials on this site provided that such materials may only be reprinted for personal, non commercial use. Otherwise, reproduction of materials in any form is prohibited except with the prior written permission of Cleveland Clinic. ... Reprint rights do not allow you to repackage, sell, resell, post on blogs or any other website, display, republish, reproduce, link or frame or store any material without expressed written permission."

Here are some thoughts -

Wikipedia has always insisted that it is available for commercial use. We insist that media providers agree to provide their content for commercial use. One explanation for this is that the textbook industry is universally commercial.
You are definitely proposing posting these images on another website
we do not have expressed written permission

Here are some options for hosting these pictures, and there might be others -

Upload the images in the usual way to Wikimedia Commons. They will need standard Wikipedia licenses, with the default license being Wikipedia's least permissive license but still much more permissive than what is suggested in the text above.
Do something odd and innovative, like ask Cleveland Clinic to put these images in a publicly accessible press kit. Right now, most of http://onbrand.clevelandclinic.org is inaccessible to everyone except CC employees. We in Wikipedia do not have an obvious path to do verification processes without access to a public press kit and some compatible guidance for reuse. When both the pictures are behind a wall, and the copyright text says "do not use", that leaves little room for negotiation, and special negotiation almost never happens (maybe ~20 times in 15 years) anyway.

I want to work with you but my first ask would be - under what circumstances would you be willing to share any image in the way that the millions of others are being shared? Would it be possible for you to share any promotional pictures with the usual Wikipedia license rather than trying to find special accommodation on one side or the other? If you want to chat by voice I would talk to you about this issue. Thanks for your text work too - but leaving that aside, I would like to offer directly support you with a chat on picture upload (email me) if that would be useful to you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CCFlorida.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CCFlorida.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CCHillcrest.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CCHillcrest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Aerial 2013.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aerial 2013.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Glickman-tower.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Glickman-tower.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Cleveland Clinic does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

In future, please always use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for an edit, or a summary of what an edit changes. Thanks! Elvey^(t•c) 01:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK? --Elvey^(t•c) 08:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?--Elvey^(t•c) 02:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HealthMonitor. Contributions that violate US law are not welcome here. You have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, so you have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or 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, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Last but not least: All contributors must not contribute content that violates conflict of interest laws (just as all contributors must respect copyright). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is valid throughout the European Union. In a German court decision in 2012 (that also relied on the directive) regarding Wikipedia: "The court held that when a company edits a Wikipedia article, the resulting text falsely creates the impression that the edit has no business-related purpose. By implication, the judges found that the average reader of Wikipedia articles expects to find objective and neutral information" rather than content written by a paid advocate such as yourself. That is a very very important condition, comparable to the FTC Guide" that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser”. This expectation by consumers of neutral information on Wikipedia, requires that companies not write "their" WP articles for PR/marketing purposes.

Editors who are compensated for their contributions should make the disclosure by placing the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page of affected articles and filling in the parameters. They should also supply this information as part of a list on their user page of all their paid contributions.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have more discussion at Talk:Cleveland Clinic. I posted there already. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ignoring of, e.g. FTC Guide is getting tiresome.--Elvey^(t•c) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Warning: "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Those that don't may be blocked from editing. - WP:CIVIL. You are being given a reasonable opportunity to adjust your behavior before blocking occurs.

--Elvey^(t•c) 02:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Clinic[edit]

Hi HealthMonitor, you have a declared COI as someone who works for the Cleveland Clinic, so please don't make any edits to the page. Minor edits are okay (e.g. fixing spelling), but for anything that might be contentious, please suggest it on the talk page instead. See WP:COI. Many thanks, Sarah ^(talk) 00:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah: Thank you for your comment. Someone pointed this out to me previously, and I did indeed move my edits to the Talk page and suggested that other editors might want to post them to the article page. But this and all of my contributions over the past several weeks to the Talk page have disappeared. I'm not a veteran editor, and I don't know if this often happens, or how it happens. But please know that I am trying to be responsive to other editors comments. Health Monitor October 18, 2015, 11:40 am.

Hi again. I'll have a look at the contributions that may have been removed, and I'll restore them if they have. I did see that your draft had gone because it was too long for the talk page. If you would like to propose a draft, you could place it in User:HealthMonitor/Sandbox or User:HealthMonitor/Cleveland Clinic.

I think it would also help if you could clarify your role here. You've written "I work at Cleveland Clinic. I have volunteered to monitor Cleveland Clinic's Wikipedia presence," but it isn't entirely clear what that means in terms of our COI guideline. Sarah ^(talk) 18:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara: In regards to the COI, there's no question that I do work for the subject of the article. HealthMonitor 4:05 pm, 18, October 2015.

Thanks. The issue is whether you're being paid to edit Wikipedia, even if only indirectly as part of your salary. You do have a financial conflict of interest either way, so you're advised not to edit directly; see WP:FCOI. I pinged you on the COI noticeboard, as I'm confused about what is happening at the article – in particular, why you removed the Consumer Reports report, and why someone who works for Consumer Reports helped you to do that. My apologies if I've misunderstood. If you could reply there, it would keep things together. Sarah ^(talk) 20:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin gave some advice and I tried to follow it on the talk page. The issue is that you added a lot of content, and Wikipedia does not make it easy to review entire articles. So to make it easier for people to give comment, I took most of what you contributed (minus some content at the top which had objections) and posted it to the talk page.

I have been around Wikipedia for a while, and protocol sometimes is not obvious to me. I have never seen this done with any other article, so let's give it a try here and see who comments. Typical review periods are 10 days, with active discussion possibly extending this. At a glance, the content looks good enough for me. Thanks for your continued participation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this done with any other article either, and it shouldn't have been done. As I said, the best thing is for HealthMonitor to post her draft in userspace. Then she can post individual edit requests on talk if that would make things easier for the volunteers at the page. Posting the whole draft on talk isn't helpful, and has already been reverted at least once. Sarah ^(talk) 00:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah: I am not getting paid to edit Wikipedia, but yes I do get a salary. I removed both the US News and World Report ranking and the Consumer Reports rankings because the framing language around them was subjective, and I was trying to shear the article of any non-objective appraisals, along with any weasel words or promotional phraseology. Please note that I did that during my early, overconfident period. If I were going to do it again, I'd just remove the framing language. Or submit it to the talk page. As you can imagine, I've been chastened by this whole experience.HealthMonitor 11:00 PM EST, October 18, 2015

Hi HealthMonitor, the problem is that the draft you inserted has the ring of an advertisement to it. If the Cleveland Clinic knows that you're doing this, you risk causing them a problem (see COI editing on Wikipedia). If they don't know you're doing it, you might consider telling them.

Wikipedia readers expect articles to have been written independently of the article subject. If you were using Wikipedia to make a purchasing decision about an item you otherwise knew nothing about, you would probably not be happy to find the Wikipedia article had been written by the manufacturer.

If there are errors in the article, or if important material is missing, you're welcome to use the {{edit request}} template on the talk page to ask that that material be fixed or added. Then (I hope) someone uninvolved will look at the request.

If the article contains a serious error that needs to be removed quickly (for example, if something mistaken or poorly sourced is harming the hospital), let me know and I will consider removing it for you.

By the way, you can sign your talk-page posts by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~ (top left-hand corner of the keyboard). Sarah ^(talk) 22:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah: Now I'm embarrassed. One of the objects of my intervention was to have an article that didn't sound like an advertisement. The incumbent article seemed short on facts and history, and long on the evaluative rankings, both positive and negative. I wanted the prose to be totally flat and factual. Nothing that anyone could argue about. You mentioned something that should be removed immediately. I wonder if it would be possible to remove the "weasel words" and the "words that promote the subject' alluded to in the yellow boxes at the top of the page. HealthMonitor (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)HealthMonitor[reply]

I've removed the tags as you requested. I agree that the article could use some development, but it can't be written as though this is the company's website. There are earlier versions in the history that seem more complete, but the material was removed for some reason. Perhaps you could ask why on talk and argue for restoration. Sarah ^(talk) 21:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HealthMonitor, please review the WP:COI guideline, and please stop editing the article directly. Instead, please use the {{edit request}} function to suggest changes on the Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital ratings article[edit]

Hello. I work at Consumer Reports. We produce hospital ratings. Other organizations do as well.

Eventually I would like for Wikipedia to have an article called "hospital ratings". I hardly know where to begin making one because as you know, Wikipedia has to be a summary of published sources, and I am not sure how to find a fundamental source explaining the concept of a hospital rating. You also know that organizations should not write about themselves. It is completely out of bounds for an organization to criticize its competitors too.

I know that you are developing the Cleveland Clinic article with hospital ratings. Would you look at this draft I have?

User:Bluerasberry/U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Rankings

To me, it seems like a step toward creating a "hospital ratings" article to make sub-articles on particular ratings, if that is even possible. For this magazine's ratings, I have this draft. I am thinking of proposing it as a Wikipedia article. I would like to make one for Consumer Reports, and I wish I could make one for other ratings systems, but I am not yet sure if that will even be possible for lack of sources to cite.

Would you be willing to give any comment on this US News article? If this draft were a Wikipedia article, would you consider it to be unfairly critical or inappropriate? I made it by summarizing whatever academic papers I could find on the ratings, but as it turns out, papers are published when people have something critical to say. That was not really my intent in drafting this.

I am wondering if I should go further with a little more research and try to find other sources to make a base "hospital ratings" article, but I am not sure if this is a good direction to go. If there were a "hospital ratings" article, then I think it might be easier to add hospital ratings in a section to many hospital articles in some standardized way without a lot of debate. I would like to see a range of rankings from various sources in many hospital articles when those are available. How do you feel about this? I am taking a long and cautious approach to this, and only am talking now to think of what might happen in the coming months and years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry, thanks for your message. You are to be commended for taking on a monumental task. I look forward to be among those reviewing your preliminary article, and providing whatever help I am able. HealthMonitor (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariamc1984. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustaZBguy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]