User talk:Absander

Concern about ConsumerLab links
Hi Absander! Welcome to Wikipedia. I was looking at your recent contributions and noticed that your edits have included a large number of mentions and references to consumerlab.com:


 * Edits to Dog Health that added eight mentions and ten references.
 * Edits to Multivitamin that added five mentions and four references.
 * Edits to Fish oil that added nine mentions and four references.
 * Edits to Krill oil that added two mentions and three references.
 * Edits to Ginkgo biloba that added three mentions and five references.

This appears to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. Please see these guidelines:


 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations

If you have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again! The right way to respond is by writing a comment on your talk page or my talk page. If you respond to the email directly, nobody will see it. :) It's also part of Wikipedia practice to use public talk pages for this type of conversation, so that any other editor interested in these articles can also read this discussion and perhaps add another opinion. See Tutorial/Talk pages for some more tips. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I will do that, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absander (talk • contribs)

Re: Your Concern
In response to your message, I would like to assure you and Wikipedia that the contributions are objective and factual, and, I do not believe, violate Wikipedia’s policies, which I have reviewed. ConsumerLab.com’s independent product analyses are well regarded and frequently cited by other objective sources and news media. Similar information has been submitted by ConsumerLab.com as testimony at the request of U.S. Senate and Congressional sub-committees reviewing the safety of dietary supplements.

I believe you will find that the added content is helpful to the reader and helps complete the treatment of each topic by providing information about quality concerns which exist with each type of dietary supplement. No mention is made of specific brands of dietary supplements.

I understand that the obligation to comply with Wikipedia’s rules rests with the contributor, but if you believe that any content is inappropriate, it would be instructive to me if you would provide a specific example which I can review and address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absander (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for responding! First, just a quick note about Wikipedia practices: when you add a comment to a talk page, you should sign it by typing ~ at the end of your comment. When you save your edit, that symbol will automatically be replaced with your username and a timestamp.


 * I agree that ConsumerLab seems like a decently reliable source to add to articles on these topics, but your edits favor it in a repetitive/excessive way that appears promotional. If you mentioned it once and then used it as a citation a couple times, among citations to several other reliable sources that cover supplements, that wouldn't stand out to me as promotional. Wikipedia has a concept of "undue weight" - see Undue weight for a detailed explanation - which is primarily about coverage of viewpoints in an article, but I believe it also should be considered when sourcing articles. If ConsumerLab were the only company that tested Gingko supplements, it'd make sense for it to be the only testing company mentioned in that article, but I believe it's one of several companies that test supplements, so it should be covered among other companies.


 * Are you affiliated with the company? Best practice is to disclose your affiliation on your user page (and ideally also on the article's talk page), and to propose your edits on the article's talk page so that they can be discussed with other editors (and refined) before being added to the article. This helps make sure that your edits fit within Wikipedia guidelines.


 * Let me know if this isn't enough of an explanation, and I'll try to revise one of the articles linked above as an example. You can also ask for additional help on the talk pages of those articles. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's helpful, thanks Dreamyshade. I will keep this in mind for future contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absander (talk • contribs)

November 2012
Hello, I'm SkepticalRaptor. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Green coffee, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I've removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
It appears that every contribution you've made to Wikipedia thus far is around inserting references for a particular website consumerlab.com and adding contents around that website. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding similar promotional contents to multiple articles
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. You have already been notified about spamming on November 10 here, however you have been continuing to add similar contents under the section "Supplement Quality and Concerns" into several articles, including green coffeeand milk thistle

Also, if you have conflict of interest, it is strongly advised on Wikipedia that it is disclosed per paid editing guideline.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Paid advocacy
Here is a copy and paste if our behavioral guideline:

"Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing

If either of the following applies to you


 * you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes), or


 * you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia (for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of an organization; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about),

then you are very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral.

If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the template to request edits. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other, and may not be acted upon. The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is strictly prohibited."

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerns About Edits
I am concerned that the most recent contributions to this page have been undone, and the editor's comments are false. The findings reported were not "self-proclaimed." ConsumerLab.com testing methods are available to the public, and as the website states, negative findings are always re-confirmed in a second laboratory. These findings were also published by reputable third party sources like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, in keeping with the previous recommendations by the editors on this page. I think the deletions of these recent additions are overzealous, considering the fact that this is information that many people would be interested in knowing, and, again, are reported by reputable sources. While I fully understand the need to guard against promotion, can you please explain to me how keeping information from the public, which is reported by reputable third parties is in the public's best interest? Absander (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Absander


 * "in the public's interest?" oh please. It's pretty obvious that you're working on this article for CL.com. The articles are on reputable source, but the addition of cherry picked contents that you want to see it posted creates undue bias towards favorable publicity. What I recommend is that you edit through a neutral party through edit requests. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cantelope2 your response seems out of line with the Wikipedia guideline for editors on [|Civility]civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility and I am getting concerned that you do not seem impartial in your editing of this page. I am not sure what you mean by "addition of cherry picked contents that you want to see it posted creates bias towards favorable publicity."


 * I have followed the previous recommendations to only include findings that have reliable outside references. This in no way is "cherry picking," rather, it is exactly what I was told to do in terms of only adding content with reputable third party sources, just as the other Notable Findings, which were discussed, edited and reviewed by multiple editors.


 * I also think that these findings would be of interest to people who read Wikipedia or are reading about ConsumerLab.com. The fact that ConsumerLab.com tested and confirmed that some supplements do not contain the amount of ingredients as listed on the label, and the fact that ConsumerLab.com tested and confirmed that tea leaves were contained lead, is relevant company information and something that people reading about the company would want to know. This information also seems to be in line with the kind of information provided about other companies on Wikipedia.Absander (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Absander
 * I share Cantaloupe2's concerns. You're a WP:SPA with almost no editing experience, focused solely on ConsumerLab.com. You've done a good job learning to avoid your early mistakes, but seem to be stuck now with repeatedly adding material that violates the policies and guidelines that have been repeatedly pointed out to you (mainly WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV). --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Additions
The following additions were deleted from the page as discussed above. The history shows this comment at the time of deletion: "Self-serving PR edits to show case what the company wants shown. Adding "notable findings" by self-proclaimed notable by company's PR editor who was warned before is sketchy."

As I feel these additions comply with policy and recommendations of previous editors (using reputable outside sources, etc.) I would really appreciate some editor feedback or have them added in if you are ok with them. If changes are needed, please comment. Thanks.

Also, in the future, I will post proposed additions here for review first.

Personnel Dr. Cooperman has been an invited speaker at the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements Dietary Supplement Research Practicum in 2011, 2012, and 2013, participating on the “Meet the Watch Dogs” panel.[ http://odspracticum.od.nih.gov/speakers.aspx/ NIH The Mary Frances Picciano Dietary Supplement Research Practicum Speaker Information]

Products and Services ConsumerLab.com purchases all products to be tested, performing initial disintegration testing in-house and other testing in independent laboratories. ConsumerLab.com About Us

Notable Findings The same year, ConsumerLab.com tests found that two out of 10 turmeric and curcumin supplements selected for testing had fewer active compounds than expected from the label Wall Street Journal Flavor in Curry Favored by Some for Joint Pain and two of 12 probiotic supplements it selected for testing had fewer viable probiotic organisms than expected from the label. Wall Street Journal Probiotics' Benefits May Be More Than a Gut Feeling In 2013, ConsumerLab.com tests found that while the leaves of several brewable green teas contained more than 1.25 mcg of lead per serving, the liquid portion of the brewed teas did not contain significant levels, suggesting that tea bags and other types of filters may help prevent the lead in tea leaves from reaching the tea liquid. New York Times Well Blog What’s In Your Green Tea?

Conflicts of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Absander. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Per the discussions above and your contribs it is ~pretty clear~ that you probably work for ConsumerLabs.

You do not seem to be aware that Wikipedia's Terms of Use changed in July 2014 to require disclosure if you are paid to edit. I am providing you with a notice of the COI guideline and associated policies, including the Terms of Use, and will have some comments and questions below.

Hello, Absander. 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. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * 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, 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 familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. 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 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 out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with ConsumerLabs? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia under the new ToU. You can reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)