User talk:Bengt Fagrell

Journal of Internal Medicine
Hi, all my edits have been explained in the edit summaries. Please stop making inappropriate edits (like inserting inappropriate in-text external links). Please do not link to Wiley, this is a disambiguation page that should not be linked to. John Wiley & Sons journal publishing arm is Wiley-Blackwell. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randy! I do not know if this is correct when I shall kontakt you, but I try this way anyhow. Regarding Wiley-Blackwell I have got the information directly from our contact at Wiley that they have now dropped "Blackwell", and that we shall only use "Wiley". That is why I tried to change it, but if you have more recent information I will of course accept that. Bengt Fagrell (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Bengt Fagrell
 * Welcome, Bengt Fagrell! Even better than the advice in the help box above, the two of you should discuss this on the talk page of the article, so that other involved editors might have a chance to help.  Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 11:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite the advice above, I'm going to post my answer here, as the issues are rather general and not specific to that particular article. First, please click on Wiley and have a look at that page. As you will see, it is not about your publisher, but a so-called "disambiguation page". We should only link to such pages in very rare circumstances and this is not one of them. Second, what you or I know to be true or false is irrelevant. WP is an encyclopedia and we cannot write something that is not verifiable by reliable sources. Third, on my talk page you said that you are "Deputy Editor-in-Chief" of this journal. That means you have a conflict of interest and I recommend that you read the applicable policy. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I amsorry that I obviously used the wrong place when comunicating with you. It is of course easy for you with your experience of W to tell me where I should write my answers, but as a new user of W it is not that easy to understand the procedures. Anyhow, regering Wiley I fully understand your point, BUT is it then OK to write 'John Wiley & Sons'? Then to the more serious matter - COI. I understand that there may be a COI for me. As far as I understand it then nobody working for JIM can write about the journal in W. We have to ask somebody outside this community to do it. Is that correct? Once again I want to apologize that I have not fully understand where and how to communicate with you, but hopefully it will be OK anyhow. Bengt Fagrell (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Bengt Fagrell
 * No need to apologize. In general, when discussing matters specific for a certain article, it is better to use that article's talkpage, so that other interested editors can participate in the discussion and see what has been going on. In this case, I think it is better to discuss here, as the issues are more general. Concerning Wiley, for the moment I would stick to Wiley-Blackwell, which up till now was John Wiley & Sons' journal publishing arm. Once they announce the re-branding, we can start changing our articles here (that's going to be a lot of work...) As for persons with a COI editing, up to a point there is no problem. For example, once new impact factors are published, you can update the article without any problem. This goes for any information that is clearly non-controversial (and, more importantly, non-promotional)n such as name of the editor-in-chief, or publication frequency and such. It is also OK to remove obvious vandalism. For example, if some editor inserts "poop" (don't laugh, we have a lot of kids doing silly things like that), it is perfectly OK to remove that (such obvious vandalism is often automatically reverted within minutes by one of several vandalism-fighting bots). For anything more substantial, you're welcome to post on my talk page or on the journal's talk page (I'm watching it) and another editor will check and make the changes, so that there is no issue with COI. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hi Bengt - please see the WP:COI page. COI is an issue that is roiling the Wikipedia community now. In general you should not directly edit the Journal of Internal Medicine article  (although some would say, as User:Randykitty does above, that you can make purely factual corrections and revert WP:VANDALISM). You should: a) put a clear note on your user page which is here and at the top of your Talk page above, stating your relationship with the Journal of Internal Medicine b) you should go to the Talk page of the Journal of Internal Medicine article, which is here and make a note stating (i) that you have edited the article and (ii) stating your relationship with the Journal of Internal Medicine; and iii) stating that going forward, you will not directly the edit the article, (other than making corrections of mere fact and reverting clear vandalism) but instead you will suggest edits that you would like to see made on the Talk page of the article.  I am putting a COI tag on the article.  Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I have removed the tag. The article has been edited extensively by me and is neutral, there is absolutely no need for a COI tag. --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are aware, User:Randykitty of the recent discussions to create policies around COI (as opposed to the guideline we have now) but this is a big issue now, regardless of the quality of the edits. Please see Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy and the links to related policy proposals there, as well as many discussions on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales - issues around paid advocacy/commercial editing are being discussed all over the place, and one of the common denominators is that declaration of COI is essential. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that and the COI should be declared on the article talkpage. However, there is absolutely no reason to tag the article itself if there is no POV concern. --Randykitty (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! Please feel free to remove it; you could also leave a note on the Talk page stating that you have reviewed the article and find it complies with content policies, so that the record is clear for any editors or readers who want to know that COI editing has not tainted the NPOV or reliability of the article.  That is the process working.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To say a bit more...I do not believe you had any bad intention in editing under a COI... it seems that you are learning how WIkipedia works. Every article in Wikipedia has an associated "talk" page, where editors discuss the content of the article.  The Talk pages are essential for the community work of editing this encyclopedia.   You can access the Talk page directly from the article - at the top left corner of the article you will see two "tabs" - one says "Article" and the other says "Talk".   Clicking on the Talk tab brings you to the Talk page.  New comments go at the bottom.   If you want to start a new section (for instance to make a COI declaration), you can click on the "New Section" tab which is over to the right, from the Article and Talk tabs.  That gives you a template where you can provide a subject and write your comments.   Conversations within a section are threaded (indented) by using colons -- if you look at what I did above, you will see that I put one colon in front of this extra remark, and it indented my comments.  Two colons indent twice, etc, so that comments by different editors are separated.  There you go.  btw, a very good example of an editor with a conflict who follows the COI guidelines very closely on a controversial page, is User:Arturo_at_BP who is in the PR department of BP.  See Talk:BP to see how he operates (NB: much of the discussion on that Talk page has been archived -- see the beige-colored box to the right for the archives of that Talk page.)  Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)