User talk:BexarTech

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there BexarTech, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:BexarTech/Kinetic Concepts draft. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Draft of Negative pressure wound therapy
Over the last several months I've been researching and writing draft material for the article that exists, Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), but could be a lot better. As disclosed on my user page, I work with Kinetic Concepts, a firm with a stake in this technology, so I'm conscious of the fact that editing this articles without disclosing this relationship or asking for other editors to review my draft material is against Wikipedia guidelines. I'm hoping that my interest can help this article to reach a higher standard and be a more useful and reliable source of information.

In a user subpage, linked from my user page, I've uploaded a draft of the NPWT article. It is much longer than the current version, so it might be a good plan to look at it section by section, if that seems reasonable. I've put a lot of effort into using reliable sources and writing the articles without any bias, but it would be great if another editor (or editors) could read through and see what they think. I'm open to any constructive comments and will also happily answer any questions about the content of the drafts. Lastly, a longer and more detailed explanation of the same is on the NPWT discussion page. Looking forward to hearing your feedback, thanks. BexarTech (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you left a message at the article's talk page, but you may also want to post something at WT:WikiProject Medicine to reach a wider audience. Glancing at your draft, though, it appears to me to be well-referenced and written from a neutral point of view. —DoRD (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, DoRD. I've left a message on the project discussion page, so here's hoping someone there can help out. I appreciate you taking a look at the draft, thanks again. BexarTech (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (responding to the ). Since I'm not an expert on the article or its subject matter, I'm afraid I can't help you with reviewing the changes to the article. That said, from a quick, cursory look, it doesn't seem to be glaringly inappropriate, so it's probably safe to simply be bold and make the change. If someone reverts your changes, then be sure to seek consensus on the article's talk page. On a related note, I'd like to highly applaud your effort to disclose your conflict of interest. There are people who could definitely learn from your honesty and diligence in helping to create a better editing environment. :) The conflict of interest guidelines don't prohibit you from editing articles related to the conflict of interest&mdash;it's just that it seems that 90% of the time, when people do edit articles about their company or whatnot, they tend to cause trouble by disrupting an article's neutrality by whitewashing or they start spamming/advertising/pushing their products in related articles. That's why we typically tell people to be extremely careful about editing articles on which they might have a COI. The more willing you are to disclose your COI, however, the easier it is to actually have an honest discussion and build consensus over changes that should be made. =) -- slakr \ talk / 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Slakr, I've taken your advice and moved my draft over. Thanks much for the encouragement and your kind words about my COI disclosure. Cheers, BexarTech (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)