User talk:Cornelia cefai

Conflict of Interest
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please read the following; it's important.

Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines, WP:COI for short, address the inherent problems that arise when individuals and organizations edit Wikipedia articles about themselves or their products. Please read that entire policy; there will be a quiz. You have identified yourself as an employee of Immuron Ltd, and therefore you must abide by WP:COI in articles about that company and its products, such as Travelan, as well as articles that reference the company or its products‎, such as Traveler's diarrhea. What this means, specifically, is as follows:
 * 1) You cannot edit those articles yourself, except to make these non-controversial edits.
 * 2) If you would like content added, removed, or changed in any of those articles, you should make a request to that effect on the article's talk page.  One or more unconflicted editors will review your proposal.  If it is acceptable, the requested changes will be made; if not, they will state their reasons for declining to make the changes.  Discussion can then ensue, when necessary.
 * 3) Please post a formal Declaration of interest here, if you plan to continue contributing to articles about your employer, or its products.  See this example.
 * 4) If you continue to add content -- particularly promotional material -- to articles in which you have a COI, as you have done recently at Travelan and Traveler's diarrhea, you will draw the ire of a WP administrator, and probably an editing block as well.

That's it. Please take the time to read WP:Welcome to Wikipedia and WP:Five pillars. Armed with that basic information, you will be well prepared to help improve articles in a non-promotional manner, using reliable third-party  verifiable sources. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message here (I've put your user page on my watch list), or on my talk page. Again, welcome, and happy editing, DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Promotional editing
Hello, Cornelia. I am a Wikipedia administrator, and I have been contacted by an editor who is concerned about your editing, so I have thoroughly examined your editing history. I see that, despite the message above, you have continued to edit on a subject where you have a clear personal involvement, and therefore a conflict of interest. Moreover, your editing on that subject has been far from neutral in character. In fact, although some of your edits may be regarded as mere filling in of factual details, it is clear from the overall sum of your editing that your purpose in editing is to use Wikipedia as a medium for promoting your company's product, which is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Some of your edits, such as this this and this have involved posting what I can only regard as straight marketing copy into a Wikipedia article. Perhaps even more disturbing are edits such as this, where, without any explanation whatsoever, you removed content which was unfavourable to your company's product. In you even stated in your edit summary that your purpose in editing was to enable patients to 'access' your product: that is to say that you openly declared that you were editing to publicise or promote your product.

Editing to promote or advertise is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Editing in a way which does not reflect a neutral point of view is also contrary to Wikipedia policy, whether done by adding content to promote a point of view, by removing content unfavourable to a preferred point of view, or by any other means. You have chosen not to change your editing in line with what you were told about editing with a conflict of interest, but following Wikipedia policies is not optional. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, to edit in ways which do not reflect a neutral point of view, or to to edit in ways which make it clear that your purpose here is not to improve the encyclopaedia but rather to use the encyclopaedia to further the interests of your company, then you may be blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is clear that you are here not to contribute to building the encyclopedia, but to use Wikipedia to promote your business and a product of your business. Your recent editing of Traveler's diarrhea was clearly designed to negatively impact a product which is in competition with yours, and also the negative statements you made about it were not actually supported by the source you cited. (It could be argued that what you wrote was implied by the content of the source, but using a source to support something which you have inferred from the source, but is not actually contained in that source, is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on original research. When in addition the statement involved is made by an editor with such a clear conflict of interest as you have, and so clearly editing with a promotional agenda as you are, it is totally unacceptable.) If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi "JamesBWatson" (talk) I read your above discussion with great interest and intrigue.

Can you please explain why I have been blocked after correcting a misleading statement on traveler's diarrhea (TD) using factual information from the FDA Federal Register, yet another user who goes under the pseudonym DoctorJoeE continues to edit Wikipedia in what can only be described as biased and unhindered?

My assertions are based on the following. Since July 2014 I have made a number of edits to traveler's diarrhea to include Travelan. On a number of occasions DoctorJoeE edited my edits claiming they fell out of Wikiepdia code of conduct. As I am a new user to Wikipedia I welcomed these edits as I was unaware that certain statements cannot be made on Wikipedia. Initially I thought nothing further of DoctorJoeE edits until on 30 October when I noted a sentence discussing bismuth subsalicylate on traveler's diarrhea was written in a manner that inferred it can be used as a 'preventative' for TD with a reference to a single website which contained no verifiable peer reviewed references. As a scientist I am keenly interested in understanding the studies that support claims. As such I decided to research this statement and discovered that in fact in 2003 the FDA determined that data presented to them was insufficient to support the use of bismuth subsalicylate as a 'preventative' for TD. As Wikipedia is all about truth, transparency, and knowledge for all, I felt it imperative to edit this sentence to read as follows "Studies show a decrease in the incidence of TD with use of bismuth subsalicylate and antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis however after a review of available studies the FDA determined the data is insufficient to support the use of bismuth subsalicylate for prophylaxis of TD. "

Interestingly, within hours DoctorJoeE amended my edit to read as follows "Several studies show that oral bismuth subsalicylate (two tablets or two fluid ounces four times daily) reduces the incidence of TD. While many travelers find a four-times-per-day regimen inconvenient, the FDA has affirmed that the data support the use of bismuth subsalicylate in treating TD symptoms. "

As you can plainly see, DoctorJoeE removed any mention of FDA's negative finding and replaced it only with FDA's positive finding. In hind sight, I regret not adding the positive information, however at the time I was only interested in correcting a false statement. However, from this last edit by DoctorJoeE I was struck by the manipulation of words to present only the positive FDA findings and remove the negative FDA findings. If DoctorJoeE was honestly interested on making certain that Wikipedia presents factual and balanced information he/she would have left both statements in place. In contrast, by removing the negative finding and only leaving the positive finding, I can only surmise DoctorJoeE must have a vested interest in the company that manufactures bismuth subsalicylate. Why else would DoctorJoeE be wishing to continually amend any information I post for Travelan yet remove the first hint of negative information I post (which was totally factual and in no way vexatious) regarding bismuth subsalicylate. Furthermore, and strangely coincidentally, on 30 November, the site for Travelan has since been tagged with numerous supposed violations, all of which are totally vexatious and unfounded. I can only surmise that these tags are from users who also have vested interest to support the company that manufactures bismuth subsalicylate.

If my assumptions are correct regarding the above, I wish to ask what is the point of having Wikipedia if it can be hijacked and used to manipulate and misconstrue?

Worse still block individuals who are adding facts not fiction?

I look forward to your feedback and formally request that I be unblocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanking you in advance. Cornelia cefai (talk) 10.11am AEST 10 Nov 2014 (UTC)


 * Before saying anything else, I should let you know that as long as your account is blocked, you do not have permission to edit Wikipedia at all, except for editing this page in connection with your block. Please do not evade the block by editing without logging in, or by using any other account, even if your intention in doing so is entirely honourable. To request an unblock, follow the instructions in the block notice, and another, uninvolved, administrator will make an independent review of the block. If you need for any reason to call any individual editor's attention to anything you write, you can include in your message, and provided you also sign your post by putting ~ at the end of your message, that editor will be automatically notified of your message.


 * Almost all of what you say above is completely missing the point. The reasons for the block are spelt out above, and nothing in your message above addresses those reasons. You are blocked because of what you have done, and whether someone else has or has not done unacceptable things is irrelevant.


 * Although, as I have said, the reasons for the block are spelt out above, for your convenience I will remind you of some of the relevant comments. The fundamental point is "your purpose in editing is to use Wikipedia as a medium for promoting your company's product". Further relevant comments are "you even stated in your edit summary that your purpose in editing was to enable patients to "access" your product: that is to say that you openly declared that you were editing to publicise or promote your product", "you removed content which was unfavourable to your company's product", "Your recent editing of Traveler's diarrhea was clearly designed to negatively impact a product which is in competition with yours".


 * Although the issue concerned is not the direct reason for the block, another point is certainly relevant to the likelihood of success of any unblock request. I note that in your long message above you are at pains to point out how much you have been concerned with making sure that Wikipedia content accurately reflects what sources say. In particular, you emphasise this in connection with your editing of the article Traveler's diarrhea concerning bismuth subsalicylate, in which you wrote "after a review of available studies the FDA determined the data is insufficient to support the use of bismuth subsalicylate for prophylaxis of TD". You state that you "felt it imperative to edit" to make the Wikipedia article reflect the source. However, I have looked over the source you cited several times, and nowhere can I see anything in it that says that the data is insufficient to support the use of bismuth subsalicylate for prophylaxis. If I missed somewhere where it says that, perhaps you can quote the sentence in question verbatim to help me find it, but I really don't see anything in the cited source about data being either sufficient or insufficient to support use for prophylaxis; indeed, I cannot see any indication that the issue of prophylaxis was even considered. You go on to say "As you can plainly see, DoctorJoeE removed any mention of FDA's negative finding and replaced it only with FDA's positive finding." What negative finding? As far as I can see there is no mention of any "negative finding" in the source, and that appears to be an interpolation of your own. The "positive finding" (Which you removed and DoctorJoeE restored), however, clearly is present in the source. I really find it difficult to understand your view of the situation as yourself being the noble scientist selflessly working to make sure that articles objectively reflect reliable sources, while DoctorJoeE wickedly seeks to introduce bias because of a vested interest.


 * I would caution you against making such unsubstaniated accusations as "I can only surmise DoctorJoeE must have a vested interest in the company that manufactures bismuth subsalicylate". Over the years in which I have been a Wikipedia administrator, time and time again I have found that throwing out such accusations is a clear and unambiguous hallmark of editors who themselves are only here to promote a business, and whose outlook is so heavily centred on doing things because it will profit them that they cannot conceive of anyone doing otherwise. People who are not here to promote a business don't go around automatically jumping to the conclusion that everyone who disagrees with their editing must be here to promote a business; people who are here for that purpose frequently do. I also suggest that you may like to browse through DoctorJoeE's editing history for a while, and ask yourself, if he is here to promote a business, why he has made 6,929 edits, the overwhelming majority of which have nothing whatever to do with that business. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unblock Request
Would you like to post a formal unblock request? If so, use on this page, and it will be reviewed by an administrator unrelated to the case. Origamiteⓣⓒ 12:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I might add, for the record, that blaming me for your block is not going to sway any reviewing admin that you were (and are) sincere in your quest for clarity and truth. You need to convince the community that you were not using your WP account solely for promotional purposes; a tall order, IMHO.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Admit it Doc, you are a subsalicylate schill. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * At least you didn't brand me a Kaopectate junkie... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have sorted out the improper template on the unblock request above. May I note that the request itself hasn't got a hope of succeeding. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

thankyou! (User talk:Cornelia cefai)20.51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)