User talk:Jfgouzer

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Jfgouzer/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  23:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hydroquinone
I am a complete outsider to whatever debate or controversy is going on abuot skin depigmentation, so my revert on hydroquinone was not aimed at your views specifically. This topic should be settled on the Talk page somewhere. We could invite experts on Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:MEDRS etc) and there are even some MD-editors roaming around. Another aspect is to avoid the assumption that the article is about the situation in the US or UK. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * agreed on your concern. modified. thanks for building up rather than undoing. serious concerns and alternatives to hydroquinone for medical use are to be raised. Jfgouzer (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
If you have a business interest in hyperpigmentation cosmeceuticals, I am concerned that your editing that clearly involves promoting certain products on Wikipedia constitutes a significant conflict of interest. Please have a look at the message below. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jfgouzer. 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, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the 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 take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * no conflict of interest. providing content for public health issues, scientific research and medical progressJfgouzer (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So are you claiming that you do not sell this stuff? Or a competitor? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * no not selling this stuff. nor a competitor.Jfgouzer (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
You are blatantly giving WP:UNDUE weight to content about cysteamine across several articles, based on sources that fail WP:MEDRS. Please stop.

Your recent editing history at Melasma shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * medical outcome is documented and sources are provided. Please explain? on many occasions you simply reverted article that provides outdated sources and that goes against good public health evidencesJfgouzer (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please actually read WP:MEDRS. Once you have, please respond here.  MEDRS has been linked-to on this page three times already and in several edit notes in response to edits you have made.  You are wasting other people's time.  Being new is not a bad thing but ignoring what people are telling you is unacceptable.   Jytdog (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Using talk pages
Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. When you respond to someone, please respond under their comment, not on top of it.

Also 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 Wikipedia 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 your 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.

I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work in. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Every edit you have made has been promotional of Scientis' product
Please read WP:PROMO and WP:SPA. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So what? No conflict of interests. There are scientific evidences of medical progress and public health benefits. But I see this is not much of interests for you. Why do you start investigating and taking some documented and meaningful actions?Jfgouzer (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no comment on COI matters. But when someone links to something, you should read it. You just admitted to consistently violating a fundamental Wikipedia content policy: WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

ok just to understand : what is your interest? cysteamine is an active ingredient open in public domain. There are scientific evidences, documented in peer reviews and review articles, of medical progress and public health benefits. Let s open the discussion to a wider audience rather than just deciding by yourself on good contributions, bad contributions and definitions.Jfgouzer (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know it is hard for you to even imagine this but every editor who has commented here on your Talk page - which is increasingly clearly a waste of time - is a longtime member of WP:MED and we work to improve and maintain articles about health and medicine in Wikipedia. You have obviously not read WP:MEDRS yet as you are repeating the same irrelevant justification for your edits as before.   Dealing with the policies and guidelines is not optional, and we block and ban editors who refuse to engage with them.   I am done trying to educate you - any further posting I make here will be with regard to seeking administrative actions against you or warnings about that. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jfgouzer,

Forbidden knowledge: Wikipedia is based on constitutions and these are made by members who during the timeline of their activities felt would address certain issues or safeguard their positions. Even if every editors involved in Wikipedia are volunteers there are certain visible and unspoken power structure here. Whether what you add is evidence based or not, it is not important even if it is important in other contexts. Wikipedia works in a pre-medieval way in its exchanges even if on the outer layer it appears and promotes modernity. You also have to be careful with whom you are engaging. In Wikipedia word of an Administrator is the rule, even if it appears illogical in certain areas and even if you could cite existing rules against their statements and if you attempt to do so you would be already counted as a disruptive element. Even if you think you can fight one person there would be an array of meatpuppets who would attack and are better at making your position or bending your inclusions worthless. In the end if you are not subservient or reputed you would be booted out. Take this advice with a little bit of caution because I don't know much about Wikipedia, but this is what I have witnessed at times. You are lucky in one way, because you aren't given the ticket out. - Usually it happens much earlier. 117.215.194.175 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.55.2 (talk)

Your draft article, User:Jfgouzer/sandbox


Hello, Jfgouzer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Linguist un Eins uno 16:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)