User talk:209.93.147.123

--209.93.147.123 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)== Paid Conflict of interest == Hello 209.93.147.123. Your edits look as if you are being paid. Paid promotion is an especially egregious type of conflict of interest (COI). Paid articles should be submitted through the articles for creation process. If you are receiving or expect to receive money for your edits, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post the disclosure on your user page at User:209.93.147.123. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being paid, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC) (struck, fixed header Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)}

Hello, 209.93.147.123. 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. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Really - you do not understand the policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia content, and you are making judgements instead based on your own authority and your very, very clear WP:APPARENTCOI. Please stop, and disclose your conflict of interest, and I will explain to you how you should edit here. What you are doing violates Wikipedia's content and behavior policies and guidelines and is unethical. Jytdog (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

REALLY? The encyclopedia ANYONE can edit? Is such a closed shop that the insiders won't let anyone else make reasonable edits without accusing them of being somehow paid or promotional? Please consider what has happened here: - user undid all my hard work, inserted biased negative statements - I accepted the bulk of the changes but corrected the bias -
 * Have you read the Abbas source? Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Every time you edit, you agree to the Terms of Use, which obligate you to learn the policies and guidelines and follow them. You are not even trying. Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edits look like a company employee's, because you are violating our policies to remove negative content and add positive content. People without a COI don't edit that way. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

People with social skills don't just undo other people's largely compatible work.

I accepted pretty much everything else you undid apart from the inaccuracies and innuendo. There's absolutely NO REASON to say the studies are unpublished other than to imply that there is something being hidden.

Basically you have got it into your head that I am somehow paid to do this so it's a vendetta to undo my contributions. It's also part of this skewed view you have that you have to make the article so negative - biased - unfairly so. Have YOU got a conflict of interests?


 * You have not answered the question about your connection with the company. I have already answered your question on the article talk page. It is remarkable that you are refusing to disclose your connection. Managing conflict of interest is essential in the biotech/pharma space. Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And are you really unaware that getting clinical trial results published has been a huge issue for years now? Really?  Here, read any one of the 66 million google hits about it.  Trying to say "the FDA committee published them" is pretty cynical.  Jytdog (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you unaware that Arpida went bankrupt and pretty much all activity on development of iclaprim ceased there and then back in 2009 until Motif Bio bought the rights? Saying the paper was not published is cynical in itself.

1./ I am not paid by anyone to amend wikipedia 2./ As far as I can tell my use of wikipedia conforms to the rules but hey I hardly EVER edit wikipedia. Antibiotics, especially new antibiotics and the increase in antibiotic microbial resistance happens to be a subject I am personally interested in for private reasons.

People visiting Wikipedia looking for data about iclaprim might still be interested in the (non-peer-reviewed) source data from the FDA website. So my edit to simply make that fact available is absolutely fair in my view, and your reasons for not wanting that data to be linked remain opaque.

And as for adding the most negative quote you could find from the CHMP rather than the primary reason for rejecting also appears motivated to be cynical about this. Perhaps as a punishment beating to me for daring to try and improve wikipedia with information I have learned, because you thought I was paid?

This is really poor form and has put me off bothering to edit ever again. Simply not worth the hassle.
 * Many experts find Wikipedia frustrating, especially ones with a conflict of interest. I hear you that you are not paid to edit, but your comments reflect insider knowledge that makes it clear you have an external connection that is creating a conflict of interest.  The WP:COI guideline is linked in the message above.
 * You have been too impatient to read that, or much of anything. (Again, this is common with experts who have a COI - there is so much pressure to get what is in their head into Wikipedia)
 * People also get all paranoid when their edits are rejected. Your edits were rejected because they violated the content policies. I have no bias against this company or product - heck I want there to be new antibiotics. We need them badly.
 * There are always some places where reasonable people can disagree about how to apply the policies and guidelines, but you are not even standing on the foundation of those policies so we have no rational basis on which to talk about content, at this point.
 * Your continued avoidance of disclosing your connection with the product and company per the COI guideline also is making this discussion more difficult than it needs to be. Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have given you a more appropriate notice above, based on what you have said so far. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly as per my statement above I have no relationship whatsoever with *any* biotech company. I do not get paid, for much, really; nor is any outside party motivating me to make edits to Wikiepdia or promote iclaprim.

I am essentially being asked to breach my own privacy by explaining my interest to justify my knowledge in the subject, which is something I won't do.

I have already accepted the bulk of my effort on this page has been wasted. Pretty much everything I have added has been undone. That was a few hours of typing, cross-referencing, adding citations.

As for being an insider there is absolutely nothing in my edits that is not already in the public domain; indeed I added citations to the majority of my content. I have spent literally years reading about the development of new antibiotics as well as the increasing threat of AMR and in particular I am interested in public policy to promote the development of new antibiotics without creating new monopolies that end up working against the public interest by putting the cost of treatment beyond individuals.

And finally I fear it is no me who has been too quick out of the blocks. I simply added my knowledge to a publicly editable website. Within a very short space of time my edits were undone by someone quick to judge, presume guilt and quick to dish out retribution by adding what I still feel is vindictive and unnecessary bias.

I simply give up. This has not been worth the effort.

Talk page
Every article in Wikipedia has a talk page. Please use it: Talk:Iclaprim. Jytdog (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, please use the article talk page, Talk:Iclaprim. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the 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) 11:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Two things. Please read the above, and the links in it. And please disclose your connection with the drug and company already.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)