User talk:HovhannesKarapetyan

Speedy deletion nomination of Deleyaman


A tag has been placed on Deleyaman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Artificial urinary sphincter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saline ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Artificial_urinary_sphincter check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Artificial_urinary_sphincter?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your help desk question
You have a response.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Penile implant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corpus cavernosum ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Penile_implant check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Penile_implant?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:COI/WP:PAID
Please read and follow. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Doc James, thank you for the links. I’m familiar with the policies mentioned above and I do report all possible conflicts of interest where applicable. However, all my contributions in Wikipedia are solely based on my scientific interests, desire to help and contribute in expanding encyclopedic knowledge and are all done on a voluntary basis without any external interference. HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS
Please refer to WP:MEDRS for the standards required for biomedical content on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear RexxS, listing metal ions to which thujaplicins strongly bind, is not a biomedical claim, it's a chemical property shown in many studies and the reference I used for it was a review article, not a primary source. Regarding the content on ionophoric activity, WP:MEDRS allows citing in vitro and animal-model studies and writing the data arising there but also requires to be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical and to avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. I kept the requirements, I stated that it comes from an animal study, that they may have these properties and didn't imply it on humans. Thus, I consider keeping that content totally reasonable. HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When you use a horticultural journal to imply that thujaplicins have an effect on the human body, you make a biomedical claim and breach MEDRS.
 * Regarding the content on ionophoric activity, WP:MEDRS allows citing in vitro and animal-model studies ... No it doesn't. You don't use animal studies or in vitro studies to make any claim whatsoever that can be construed as aplying to humans. You wrote "may be capable for transporting iron and other divalent metal ions across the cell membrane. and that requires MEDRS. Now, I'm going to make this clear: you are looking for places where you can promote hinokitiol. You've now added sources that don't support the content, and spamming multiple references for trivial statements that only require a single citation. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are going to contest the in/validity of particular sources, then please remember that reliability is context-sensitive. That means that the best place to discuss whether a given source supports a particular piece of content is the talk page of the relevant article, not here. Doing so would facilitate contributions from other editors and remain as a more accessible record of any discussions. --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello HovhannesKarapetyan. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:HovhannesKarapetyan. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. RexxS (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear RexxS, I'm a medical professional practicing clinical medicine and spending my little free time on volunteering. I started editing and writing articles in Wikipedia since 2009, and the nature of my contribution was and still is always based exceptionally on my interests and the desire to make Wikipeda a stronger up-to-date source of information. Even if my edits can be disputed because of not meeting Wikipedian requirements, I do confirm that they represent only my pure interests and academic labor. Regarding my previous edits, I will present you my views in a more comprehensive way above, so we can discuss it in a more academic way. HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So are you being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits? You seem to have avoided giving a direct response to that question. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, of course. My direct and clear answer is negative. HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that to say that you are not directly or indirectly compensated for your edits. Thank you.
 * Are you aware that a banned former editor has been paid by a pharmaceutical company to promote the use of hinokitiol and zinc as a treatment for multiple disorders, including COVID-19? There have already been multiple examples of editors spamming references marginally related to the content in an effort to drive traffic to websites, and many examples of in vitro studies, animal studies and other primary studies being used to make claims for the efficacy of hinokitiol/zinc against various disorders. I am sure that on reflection, you can see how your edits might be viewed as fitting that pattern, and I'm relieved to hear that is not the case. Nevertheless, I strongly encourage you to steer clear of hinokitiol-related content while we are having problems with undisclosed paid editors, as you are likely to have your edits scrutinised strongly and challenged. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding and sharing that precious information with me. I really appreciate it. Actually, I've seen the previous edits and tried to change the article into the better with strong evidential basis. But I didn't know about previous editors and their financial relations with pharmaceutical companies. Thujaplicins seemed to me promissing substances, and a topic which has a lot of information in the literature and needs to be organized. These compounds have some biological activities, mainly shown in in-vitro and animal studies, so I thought if these compounds are considered as chemicals (not drugs, not remedies, not ready-to-use products), then the article should be driven in that way, presenting their in-vitro biological activities and the results from animal experiments. This is why I argued. However, for now, I will not continue working on it because of your clear explanation of the situation and because I don't want to harm this place. Regarding COVID-19, it's a very sensitive and risky topic, and I would highly discourage anyone writing anything on Wikipedia just based on in-vitro and animal studies, because even clinical trials need to be thoroughly inspected and questioned before stating any finding or conclusion. HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. I hope you didn't find my rather aggressive scrutiny too off-putting. As you might imagine, I sometimes feel like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, and worry about the amount of misinformation our articles contain because of the efforts of UPEs. Please let me know if I can ever be of help to you with your efforts to improve our medical articles. Regards --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Food browning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation solved. HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS
We've been through this before, and I should not have to tell you the same thing again. You cannot make biomedical claims like "the molecule restored hemoglobin production" without good quality secondary sources. Similarly, "Hinokitiol seems to possess in-vitro cytotoxic activity on tumor cells" is not acceptable because it creates a false expectation for in-vivo results. It also is lacking in secondary sources. These experiments have been conducted for a number of years now, and it is notable that there is a distinct absence of secondary sources reviewing them. If they ever appear, we'll have something to add to the article, but at present, there is very little to report beyond the fact that some research has been conducted. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear RexxS, thank you for your review and feedback. The part on hemoglobin was not my contribution, it was written before, although I was thinking to edit it. Regarding cancer research. I was going through that section, and have edited it numerous times before submission. Totally agree. We’re on the same page. - HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies: I must have misread the diff because of the amount of reorganisation. That reorganisation is very welcome, and I should also have thanked you for the big improvement in the synthesis and chemistry sections. The problem with the article, of course, is that there are numerous specious claims for its efficacy in treating everything from dry rot to PED, and I have to clean out those sort of additions every once in a while. Sorry you got caught up in it. --RexxS (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t worry, it’s totally ok. Thank you for your appreciation words. I also appreciate your work. It’s really amazing what you do here on Wikipedia. And it’s great to work with you. I’m always pleased to accept your remarks and advises. - HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t worry, it’s totally ok. Thank you for your appreciation words. I also appreciate your work. It’s really amazing what you do here on Wikipedia. And it’s great to work with you. I’m always pleased to accept your remarks and advises. - HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Paid editing disclosure
Hi HovhannesKarapetyan! Would you be able to creae a list of all paid editing jobs that you have engaged in? The Terms of Use were changed in 2014, so any paid editing since that date needs to be disclosed. Ideally, that disclosure should happen on your user page here or on the talk page of the articles concerned. For future paid editing work it is also ok if you wish to include a note to that effect in edit summaries. There is an explanation of how to make this disclosure at the COI guideline, and more specific information about paid editing is at WP:PAID. Unfortunately, this is a policy enforced in the Terms of Use, so while it is ok in general to be paid to edit Wikipedia, disclosure of when you are paid is a key requirement. - Bilby (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Bilby! Thank you for your message. Although I knew the policy before, I appreciate your explanation. But I didn’t make any paid contributions so far. I guess the misleading comes from the Scottish Barony. That was driven by a project from a summer school in Scotland I was attending back in 2008. There I happened to meet a historian who helped me and shared his works with me on studying origins and ancestries of different baronies. So it was kind of completion of my student work I was passionate about for many years. There were even more information I owned but couldn’t find any online or published sources to prove them. HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I know that you have been working as a paid editor for some time. That's not what I was asking about. What I was hoping was that you would be willing to disclose the clients and articles - this is needed under the terms of use. In addition, I'm not overly worried about whether or not you write paid articles about an obscure Barony. What I'm mostly concerned about is that lack of disclosure regarding paid editing on medical subjects. Conflicts of Interest in regard to medical subjects seem to be significantly more problematic. Would you be willing to provide that list? - Bilby (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Bilby, I do understand the issue of conflict of interests in medical field, and do understand because of my specialty. None of the contributions I made in medical-related articles were paid. I will definitely disclose any possible conflict of interests in the future if there will be any. The only COI can be the fact that there’s no accepted consensus whether BLEIL exists or it’s a poorly described type of cellulitis. But I do deeply believe that it’s a separate entity, but can’t prove with much literature. So maybe, my personal point of view had a more influence when writing the article. HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, until you fully disclose your paid editing work, I'll need to block this account. I am willing to consider unblocking if this is fixed in the future, but without disclosure you are in violations of the Terms of Use, and this has been raised with you at least twice in the past. I was hoping you would be willing to meet the ToU so that you continue to edit here, but unfortunately that is not the case. - Bilby (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
 Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must: Bilby (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
 * State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
 * Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.