User talk:Committed molecules

Ubiquinol - excess content removal
Hi, please see Talk:Ubiquinol for discussion/explanation about the changes to the Ubiquinol article. I'll keep an eye on that page, if you want to discuss improving the article. Drpixie (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, please consider adding something to your user page User:Committed molecules so people have some idea of your background, expertise, and interests. Drpixie (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, DrPixie here. Got your message re the bias note, but it seems other people are also very concerned about this article. Important things to note: At the moment, it really looks like any detail (especially when supported by one or two primary papers) is not appropriate for this subject. I understand that you regard it is important, but that doesn't mean that wiki is the correct place for this information - I think a digest/surveys paper in a reputable journal is where this should appear. Drpixie (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The article should follow wiki policies. If appropriate material doesn't exist for what you'd like to write, sorry but it shouldn't appear in wiki. Seems like Ubiquitol is an example if this - it is too early in the field for it to be reported in a clear, factual manner in textbooks or official guidelines because knowledge about it is uncertain and changing/evolving quickly. That kind of knowledge on a medical item is clearly again wiki policies.
 * 2) It looks like you've been reverting other peoples edits, where they are trying to conform to policy. If you get a reputation for repeating this, it just damages your position. Reverts are really for fixing damage/vandalism/graffiti, not for changing back to disputed text.

Comments and Question
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.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. Would you please let me know if you have anything to disclose with regard to Terms of Use as described above, or any relationship that may constitute a COI (for example, you might work for a company that makes or sells ubiquinol and CoQ) I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) but please disclose if you have some relationship that constitutes a COI. You can answer how ever you wish, but if there is a relationship, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Thanks!

You can reply here - I am watching this page. Once you do, we can take it from there. Thanks in advance for talking! Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Jytdog, you seem to be a neutral editor. Single-purpose account is not what I am because my edits go back to 2010. I was driven away by reverting editors so I left Wikipedia. I am not a disruptive editor which is why I just left whenever I editor kept undoing my changes. I do not think editing only in a topic of my interest and knowledge makes me a single purpose or less credible. It makes sense that I am editing what I know well. So I do not think I have any conflict of interest. Now after better understanding of making edits and rules against editwar, I have come back without fighting over what I want to add and I am following WP:DR. If you see my recent edits on Ubiquinol, I was reverted on one section so I decided to add totally different data and with new references. I am not related to those sources as it is apparent I searched for them over the internet after Alexbrn's comments but it appears he is still not happy. I want to thank you for keeping watch on this page. I will keep looking for more references as well. --Committed molecules (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

In the light of WP:COI could I ask you to clarify what connection (if any) you have to the world of Ubiquinol and/or coenzyme Q10. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what I replied above? I have no connection to the sources or world of ubiquinol whatever you mean by that. I search for them over the internet. Ubiquinol is of my interest and my field of study and I want to improve this article before I move on to others. Is it just your disagreement on standards of references that leads you to believe I do? --Committed molecules (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't see what you'd put before. Thanks for clarifying! Alexbrn (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I am merging this section you did not skip your heading. --Committed molecules (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, Committed molecules. I have to correct you - your account is a WP:SPA - you have edited on exactly one topic here in WP.  Thanks for clarifying that you don't believe you have a COI.  Based on what you write, you appear to be an academic scientist or doctor who studies CoQ/ubiquinol.  Is that right?  If so, I want to make sure you are aware of the following part of COI: Writing about yourself and your work as well as Conflicts of interest (medicine).    If you would like to add content to WP about your work, I suggest you post the content on the Talk page and ask for others' thoughts on it.  Also, please do read WP:MEDRS.  If you have questions about MEDRS and why we hold a high standard for content about health, I'd be happy to discuss that with you.  Thanks again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jytdog. I am a researcher. It is obvious in my proposal that I did not write about my own work. Each source is by different author and I am happy to look for other sources. Infact I do not have any publications, I am not here to advertise and so I do not have any conflict of interest. I am trying to improve the subject I know and I think Ubiquinol is not neutrally covering everything. It is a good thing you asked me this so that I can clarify it. I will go with posting the content on the talk page. You know that is what I did when I came back here but no one responded. Alexbrn reverted only when I added it to article after no reponse. --Committed molecules (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, all good to go on this COI front - there is no bar to you editing directly (although since there is content under dispute/debate, talk page discussion is indeed the way to go at this point. Thanks for being gracious throughout the discussion.  See you on article Talk pages! Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will prefer to go within wikipedia policies to reach a resolution not editwar with Alexbrn. Let me come up with more sources on talkpage. My only problem is that editors who want to dispute should respond on talkpage sooner or later not just wait for me to add it to article and revert. --Committed molecules (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I do suggest that you broaden your editing beyond CoQ and Ubiquinol. I should let you know that I have looked deeply into the literature on CoQ and Ubiquinol and there is not a lot more that you are going to be able to add. Human studies have not borne out the promise of in vitro and animal studies; the whole antioxidant hypothesis has not worked out in humans so far. Because Wikipedia is evidence-based there is not a lot more we are going to be able to say. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will try to edit other articles once I have more time and topics of interest. I understand that wikipedia would not allow the reference in even if I do give references to promising research on human studies. I have gone with a pubmed reference with a new proposal on talkpage. --Committed molecules (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * as you will. One more thing to keep in mind.  Often when I start talking to people, as I did with you, it is not clear if the editor is driven by a conflict of interest, or is "just" a fan or advocate for whatever the topic is.  Before I leave this, let me point you to our excellent essay on WP:ADVOCACY - please do read that and keep it in mind.  Passion is a double-edged sword in Wikipedia.  It brings people here and makes them want to contribute, but passion can push people to want to ignore our policies and guidelines and leads people into arguments with other editors.  So if you run into editors who are not as enthusiastic as you are about CoQ, please keep that in mind. We all need to leave our passions at the door as much as we can when we log in here (me included) and try to follow the policies and guidelines as we work.  Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I shall be on the side of balanced wikipedia articles. --Committed molecules (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)