User talk:DanaUllman/Archive 1

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Skinwalker 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In Particular
I have no problem at all with you contributing to homeopathic articles, but please understand that repeatedly adding links to homeopathic.com, your personal commercial website, can and probably will be viewed as a conflict of interest. If you want to contribute positively, look at the article rewrite project linked to on Talk:Homeopathy - the rewrite is in need of writers who can cogently explain the pro-homeopathic position. Please read the links in the template above, and ask me if you have any questions. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite draft
Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hi. Please read wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, in particular the section that states: "'Editors proposing to write about themselves, their own organizations, or matters they have very close ties to, are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors.'" I will open a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard in order to generate input from uninvolved parties. Skinwalker (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can view and contribute to the discussion here. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi back. Citations were requested by others, and I provided them, one of which was not to my website (and yet, you deleted it for unknown reasons) and one of which was at my website but where I quoted from the original researcher, Madeleine Ennis. I am confused why my reference to original source information is considered a "conflict of interest" just because the information is at my website. I'm still new to providing info on wiki and am open to dialogue on this subject, but it seems that there's a catch 22...a request for a citation and an effort to delete source citations. danaullman
 * Well, the first citation (I assume you refer to this one) is a problem because it doesn't back up the claim in the article that proposals you made led to a change in the law. This could be solved by some different wording, e.g. "California law was changed in 2003, allowing alternative practitioners to practice without a medical license.(cite)"  Or, if you can find a better citation that specifically discusses your role in the changed law, that would be even better.
 * The second citation is a problem because it does not meet several standards set out in wikipedia's reliable sources policy. It is essentially a self-published work, with no editorial oversight other than your own.  Again, this could be solved with some different wording, e.g. "Ullman objected to several problems in the experimental design used by the 20/20 laboratory.(cite)"  or something of that nature - I'm open to suggestion.  That way we cite what your opinion of the 20/20 study is, and we can link to your article as a rebuttal.
 * Finally, pretty much any edit you make to your entry on Wikipedia, with the exception of correcting simple and uncontroversial information like erroneous birthdates or typos, is probably a conflict of interest. Please read the conflict of interest guidelines closely.  The best thing for you to do is make suggestions and provide sources on either Talk:Dana Ullman or User talk:Danaullman and let other editors decide if and how to insert the material.  Thanks for responding, please let me know if you have questions.  If you want to talk with someone else about correcting information in your article, please see these instructions on how to do so.  Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Homeopathy. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. &mdash; madman bum and angel 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors of topics like homeopathy often have serious disagreements about the way to proceed with the article. If you return to the article, please remember that our goal is to be neutral and verifiable, and that even for controversial topics the content has to be worked out by consensus on the talk page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Coren...I have no problem in working collaboratively and to providing objectively verified information. I would like your (and others) advice on how to respond to the significant body of biased information at this site. My initial response listed numerous studies that have verified the clinical efficacy of homeopathic medicines, but this site has been hijacked by the skeptics of homeopathy and there is inadequate balance. My concern is balance. User:Danaullman

Additional thoughts...my history of participation in the homeopathic medicine information has shown responsible edits and additions and have provided objective references and critiques of references at the site. I have also many times sought to claim that the information at the homeopathy page was in dispute, due to the many efforts of mine (and many others) to change some of the clearly erroneous statements, and yet, each time my efforts to claim that this information was in dispute was deleted. I would like to work collaborately. I would like to provide references to the many meta-analyses that have shown positive results (as well as some that have not). Finally, I have personally chosen to be one of the few people at wikipedia who uses his own name, rather than a pseudoname. That said, I promise not to make large edit changes in the future (in the recent past, my largest edits have been deleted one objectionable paragraph). I have tried to figure out how to email the person who blocked me, but I cannot find his/her email. Can anyone help me here? User:Danaullman


 * → Special:Emailuser/Moreschi &mdash; madman bum and angel 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RKC First, I only have an interest in accurate and referenced information on wikipedia. My above statement shows that I am a highly pubilshed author in the peer-review literature who is familiar with research on homeopathy and can and do provide fair and balanced review of respectable sources of information. I'm not clear how my above statement says or suggests that I only wish to promote a point of view. The subject of homeopathy at wikipedia has a history of controversy. For a long time, both sides of the issue agreed that this subject was so conversial that wiki had a notation that the information posted was "in dispute." The administrator who blocked me made a notation about "fringe science" which suggests that this administrator's bias is evident. I was criticized for deleting select external links, even though the anti-homeopathy links dominated this site...and after my work was undone several times, these inappropriate links have remained deleted, suggesting that my work is appreciated. The present blocking of my contribution is a serious effort to mute one of the leading sources of information about homeopathic research and homeopathic history. This action does not bode well for wikipedia's efforts to provide good and accurate information.

In re your email
I've been reviewing your contributions, and it appears evident this account has existed only for the purposes of pushing a pro-homeopathy POV into Homeopathy and related articles.

You claim to have since read and understood Wikipedia policies and guidelines and now wish to contribute positively. This is an excellent thing. However, I can only support unblocking you iff you would not further edit any article related to Homeopathy, where your conflict of interest is insurmountable and your point of view is militant. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you did not see my email
Yes, I will unblock but only if you agree to a ban from Homeopathy and all other reasonably related articles, defined quite loosely. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)