User talk:Balrajj

WP:SOCK
Hi, your edits are identical with those made earlier by another user,. Please be aware that editing under multiple accounts is against the Wikipedia policy, WP:SOCK, and doing so can lead to both accounts being indefinitely blocked.

If you are the same person who operated the Jfgouzer account, you can avoid being blocked by disclosing the use of the two accounts, and stop using one of them. I can let you know how to do the disclosure, but please reply and let me know if you are the same user. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, No I'm not the same person using jfgouzer account, although that is someone representing the same company as me. That being said, the edits are not identical but they are based on the same scientific evidence.


 * The bulk of my changes were to do with cysteamine as a treatment for melasma, backed up by scientific evidence. I included a section on its ability to treat melasma, including side-effects. There is little to distinguish it from the information already on the page regarding its use as a treatment for cystinosis, although I didn't include the price for the treatment as was stated for the pills for cystinosis.


 * Can you tell me when my changes will me made? I think it's perfectly reasonable to write about a new therapeutic use of cysteamine, backed up by scientific studies.


 * Thank you Balrajj (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I've just seen one of the reasons for you not accepting my edits was because you aren't happy with one or more of the references used. Please let me know the specific reference and I can remove them from the copy. I also see (by looking at similar pages) that i shouldn't have mentioned the brand name for the cysteamine cream. I can also delete that from the copy.


 * Thanks Balrajj (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Would you please carefully review the postings that I and others made at User talk:Jfgouzer from the User_talk:Jfgouzer section on down?  You can reply here after you do.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I had no idea all that went on previously. I have no intention of been so combative and would rather find a speedy resolution as we both have more important things to get on with. You can put my earlier mistakes down to ignorance, this is my first time editing anything on wikipedia and I wasn't aware of all the rules regarding COI etc.


 * So first of all, I'm freelancing for Scientis Pharma who want it to be known that cysteamine is now a treatment for melasma and other hyperpigmentation disorders. Given what I've read would it be better for me to request changes to specific pages rather than make the edits myself? Is there anything in my previous edits that is acceptable to publish? The pages I would like it noted are Cysteamine, melasma, and hyperpigmentation. Thanks Balrajj (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note! I won't comment on COI matters but I'll ask someone else to.
 * On the content and sources, the problem with your effort and Jfgouzers is the sourcing. Everything in Wikipedia begins with sources, and the guideline for sourcing content about health is WP:MEDRS, which was mentioned several times on Jfgouzer's Talk page.  Please read that, but especially the WP:MEDDEF section.  Conference abstracts and other primary sources are not OK.  I looked and found no literature reviews or statements by major medical/scientific bodies about  cysteamine as a treatment for hyperpigmentation or melasma. For example,
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=("cysteamine"[MeSH%20Terms]%20OR%20"cysteamine"[All%20Fields])%20AND%20(("hyperpigmentation"[MeSH%20Terms]%20OR%20"hyperpigmentation"[All%20Fields])%20OR%20("melanosis"[MeSH%20Terms]%20OR%20"melanosis"[All%20Fields]%20OR%20"melasma"[All%20Fields]))%20AND%20Review[ptyp]&cmd=DetailsSearch


 * is the Pubmed search for reviews on that, and it gets no hits. (just paste that whole thing into your browser's address bar) With no sources, we can't talk about it, at this time.  At some point in time there may be reviews or relevant statements; they just don't exist now.  Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * also, about "indenting" talk page discussions so they are threaded, please see here on Jfgouzer's talk page. i just fixed that here by adding colons where needed.  thanks Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Strong recommended
With your COI you only post suggestions on the talk page. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)