User talk:Imperceptions

Hello, Imperceptions, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as International Misophonia Research Network, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of International Misophonia Research Network


A tag has been placed on International Misophonia Research Network, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 removed 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 deleting administrator. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Note - this page was removed, and made in a way that is neutral form with sources. Was made before I fully understood Wikipedia rules. --Imperceptions (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Imperceptions I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are all about Jennifer Jo-Brout and are promotional. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Imperceptions. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests
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. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Jo-Brout, her lab, or her foundation? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection (and there obviously is per this edit note) 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. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So, simply "having knowledge" with our without sources (especially from DUKE MEDICINE and NYU) is not sufficient to edit a page? How then, do you ever expect to have relevant information on Wikipedia? The parts of the page you have left - and reverted back to - are blatant scam artists that are making money (and paying to get in journals). Wonderful. Imperceptions (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! Would you please respond to the question I asked - namely what is your connection with Jo-Brout, Joseph E. LeDoux (per this), and Misphonia International as an organization?  You do seem to have connections here, especially if you are editing "on behalf of" any of these.   We need to deal with the COI issues here before we deal with anything else.  The integrity of WP matters (one reason people read Wikipedia at all is because they trust it - and you are editing because Wikipedia is read a lot, right?)  Thanks for talking with me. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the efforts of Wikipedia -after all, proper information is one of the most important parts of a free society. I am uncomfortable sharing my “real name” (as noted on my talk page, I am a psychology student in Undergraduate at Athabasca). Though I do not have particular interest in studying misophonia in the future, many of my professors are and may be involved in research endeavors and prefer their students remain publicly neutral. However, yes, I am in one way or another “associated” with Dr. Brout, if you would like to say it so. Unfortunately, after I am finished answering your questions I have a lot to tell you. If you can imagine, as a sufferer I am very upset. However, I understand that you are merely doing your job.

Dr. Brout and I met on social media - nearly a year ago - and I have followed her works closely, as you can imagine. Through Facebook and other endeavors I learned that Dr. Brout has been advocating the disorder for 18 years (roughly). The personal information provided (on her biography) is available through several of Jennifer’s personal websites - to which, I believed were alright on that page as it is a “living biography”.

I have helped design Jennifer’s websites, and we co-run a magazine together (Misophonia International) - however, Jennifer is blatantly in charge of all research and I DO NOT have any weight in its publishing - Jennifer is strictly listed as “Research Director” in both web and print. Dr. Brout and I are not attempting to sell through Wikipedia - and if some of her sources do not line up for purposes of the “Misophonia” page, then I understand, and so will she. We do not want to simply get our name out - we want better access to research for sufferers.

As for Joe LeDoux, I have no personal relationship with him whatsoever. The study, and its start date, is available from Jennifer Jo-Brout’s research website (www.misophonia-research.com) ; which her advisory board includes notable researchers such as Joe, Stephen Porges, Lucy Miller (of the SPD Foundation), amongst others.

As for “Conflict of Interest” you have a much larger problem on your hands, which by the way, has both proof on Wikipedia - and third party.

Please understand that the information flagged was mostly from the SPD Foundation (sourced), Duke University (sourced) and other research information.

Please check the page of the “editor” that originally took out my sources. Judith Krauthamer has written a book “Sound Rage” - which, is not an academic resource (as medical pages prefer, especially for sweeping accusations such as she was making). Whether or not this was Judith herself, or another in her favour, is irrelevant, as you will see later.

If you click the editor’s name, their prior page made was entirely about Judith - which, a few days ago, was deleted by your editors due to only having biased information (especially from LinkedIn) and only referencing her material. The note clearly states it was deleted because she is a “non-notable” “life coach”. You can probably see why I believed that this sourcing was also irrelevant for a medical disorder.

Judith has been known for causing these problems in the past - which, again, the same username has gone back (please see the debacle of June 2015 on DrJoBrout ’s user page).

Now - as for the “how do I know” that it was Judith ? Dr. Brout received a message after this editing incident - it was poised as a threat almost. As well, you will read that it admits to fault (whether third party or personal and both). Judith has also admitted to having a “network” of people that are editing the page - this is ludicrous and so beyond ethical.

I seem to be unable to post images? Here is a link.

http://postimg.org/image/otdodnjv5/

I look forward to your response,

Imperceptions (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that long reply! There is a lot of stuff you are dealing with there, and I will be happy to pick that up once we are done with the discussion about COI (one thing at a time;  COI first - and the COI discussion has two steps, as I noted above.  We are dealing with the first step: disclosure).  (And really, we will get back to the stuff you mention there.) With regard to COI disclosure, you provided a lot of helpful information, that I will summarize in my next reply to you.   But before I wrap up this "disclosure" segment of our discussion, I need to ask you about this edit note, where you wrote: "Edited on behalf of Joseph E. LeDoux".   Can you please explain what you meant, there?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)v
 * Of course. This was done through Jennifer's information- I missed the source, on her website. I assumed the research was entirely about misophonia, but in order to remove editor opinion I had to change. this was done to protect Joe from any possible misinformation, Jennifer had told me that it may be a conflict of interest with him and NYU, to word a certain way. Was a mis-read on my part, of her website, as you can see- I remain enough away from the info that some confusion does incite. I did not mean I had spoken to him, as I never have. Imperceptions (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ummmm, OK. I had to read that a few times.  In that dif you changed "officially researching" to "conducting research that informs", and I think what you are saying, is that the first version ("offiically researching") was incorrect, and may have put Ledoux at risk of getting in trouble with NYU.   So you fixed your mistake and noted that you did that in order to avoid getting him in trouble (so - on his behalf).   Not because he asked you to make that edit.  Is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I was writing from Safari on mobile *which was changing words and very unstable* As for Jennifer - she is very upset about all of this, especially because the work is so important to her. As I have said many times, I have never met Joe. As well, I'm a little worried (as is Jennifer) by the comments on the Misophonia page you have added about being triggered by pet/loved one, as well as the suicidal comment. These are VERY strong comments and the source doesn't seem very reliable - but of course, we can discuss this later. Imperceptions (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, good. Same page on the stuff about LeDoux.  (again, I am not dealing with anything else in this thread, than COI matters, for now)  Let's finish up the "disclosure" piece of the COI discussion.  Because you personally know Jennifer and because you actually work on her websites (including her organizations) and on the magazines, you have a COI in Wikipedia with regard to her, the magazine, and her organizations. You also apparently know Tim Sommer based on this edit, where you added a bunch of stuff about his life and career, without sourcing.
 * So you have a COI with regard to him too.
 * Altogether, you have conflicts of interest with regard to Jennifer Jo-Brout, Tim Sommer, International Misophonia Research Network, and Misophonia International.
 * Do you accept that? (this is just about identifying and disclosing COI in Wikipedia).  We need to deal next with how to manage the COI, and then some other stuff. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. Imperceptions (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, great. That would be great thing to put on your User page for your COI declaration. Just simple.  "I collaborate with Jennifer Jo-Brout, and have a conflict of interest in Wikipedia with regard to her, Tim Sommer, International Misophonia Research Network, and Misophonia International."   Will you please do that?  Thanks.  That will wrap up the identification/disclosure for now.  Next we'll talk about managing your COI.  Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will. Imperceptions (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. This part is done. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Managing a COI in Wikipedia
As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure and we are done there now. The second is what I call "peer review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request -  by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:Misophonia - there is a link at "click here" in that section --  if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about the address of a company) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to create or work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I will agree to it, however, I am uncomfortable with this process. But, since I am backed into a corner, I have no choice but to say yes. Imperceptions (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand that this is all weird to you. You came here with a big misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for, and how it works.  You treated it like a blog or a personal website.  But Wikipedia is nothing like that. I have spent hours (!) of my own time trying to talk nicely with you, and work with you, and fix the stuff you messed up.  I did that to make sure our articles are of high quality, and so that you can reset your thinking about Wikipedia and be on a good footing to be productive here.  If that is what you want.  If you don't want to deal with Wikipedia, as it actually exists, that is your choice.  Let me know if I should invest further time trying to get you oriented, or not.  If you want to keep trying, and you don't understand why conflict of interest matters here, please ask me.   Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you please reply this? It is important that you understand the "why" COI management matters in Wikipedia.  Do you?   Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Misophonia International


A tag has been placed on Misophonia International, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 removed 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 deleting administrator.

sorry to do this while we are still talking, but you not only made mistakes in this (see the correction by Jo here, but this article cannot exist. Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Jo-Brout article
Imperceptions, Jennifer has written on the Talk page of the article that you wrote about her, that she would like to have that article deleted. If you agree, would you write a note on the Talk page, saying that you agree? If you do that, I can apply the appropriate tag, and we can see how that goes. The Talk page is here: Talk:Jennifer Jo-Brout. Jytdog (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Jennifer is upset because of this entire situation. Please disregard for now. Imperceptions (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, you have said no, so I will proceed without you. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''

The specific part of the manual of style I wanted to mention is that which applies to names of people - you'll find it here. Academic or other titles are not used in the running text of an article; a person is not "Mr." or "Ms." or "Dr." when they are discussed in a text. In addition, the first name of a person should not be used after the first mention in the first paragraph of the article, unless it is absolutely necessary in order to distinguish several people by the same last name. Again, please have a look at this page for more information. Thanks! bonadea'' contributions talk 12:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Warning - Disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Recreating the International Misophonia Research Network article under the different title, IMRN, as you did here, is disruptive editing. If you continue to do this, you will very likely be indefinitely blocked for abusing Wikipedia for promotion. This is what happened to Tom Dozier, per his block log. It doesn't matter why you do it - if you do it to make money or because you believe you are trying to do great things in the world - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IMRN
The article IMRN has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article was about a real person or group of people, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or an organized event, but did not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is actually significant enough for an encyclopedia article, you are free to re-create it, but this time you need to demonstrate that, which is best done by citing to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected to the topic.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Advice on editing with a COI
I am sorry that you are having a difficult introduction to Wikipedia. Like many new users, it seems that you came here thinking that this was a good platform for telling the world about something you have a strong interest in, and you are finding that that is not how Wikipedia thinks it should be used.

I see that WP:Conflict of interest has been explained to you. There is a useful Plain and simple conflict of interest guide which offers advice on what to do and what not to do. You will see that you should not edit pages or post articles directly, but may make suggestions on article talk pages and submit draft articles via WP:Articles for creation, which will offer you the option to send your draft for review by an uninvolved user, who will either accept it or give you feedback.

Wikipedia is quite choosy about subjects for articles: the inclusion criterion is called Notability, and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Youtube, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything without editorial control; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? See also Notability (summary).

Before you try again with a draft about IMRN, please think hard about notability. It is, intentionally, quite a demanding test and many worthy organizations, particularly small or new ones, cannot meet it. Unless IMRN can, you will be wasting your time trying to write about it here.

The notability and COI rules apply to non-profits just as much as to commercial companies: Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.

If you do want to try again, there is good advice at WP:your first article, and you may find User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard helpful, which I wrote because I have conversations like this so often. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Another extremely important policy I should have mentioned is WP:Verifiability, summarised as "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". The point of published is that the reader should, in principle, be able to check the basis for any statement in Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Misophonia. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jennifer Jo-Brout for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennifer Jo-Brout is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jennifer Jo-Brout until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS
Please do read WP:MEDRS, and please don't propose content that is not sourced from a secondary source, as that is defined in MEDRS. if you don't understand MEDRS, please ask me here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your COI
Please don't self-define where you have a COI and where you don't, as you did here. You have a COI on this whole topic. OK? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Indenting and signing comments on Talk pages
Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here.

In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what.

It looks like this

Person 1 comment (signature)
 * Person 2 response (signature)
 * Person 1 response to person 2 (signature)
 * Person 2 response to 1's response (signature)
 * Person 3 response to original person 1 comment (signature)

I hope that makes sense. When you just read this, you can see indenting. If you click "edit" you can see the colons. If you don't understand, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * by the way, i know this is ridiculous. That is the software we have to work with, though, and the conventions we have created to use it as best we can. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)