User talk:Justinrome425

This is being posted on your talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four tildes ( ~ ) or by pressing or  in the editing interface toolbox, located just above the editing window (when editing). You won't need to sign your contributions to articles themselves; you only need to when using talk pages. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.

Again, welcome! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   23:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Barber Surgeons Guild (June 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith 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 Draft:Barber Surgeons Guild and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Barber Surgeons Guild, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Barber_Surgeons_Guild Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Barber_Surgeons_Guild reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Barber Surgeons Guild


A tag has been placed on Draft:Barber Surgeons Guild, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory paid editing disclosure
Hi Justinrome425. I work on paid editing and conflict of interest issues along with my regular editing. Please see the note below.

Hello Justinrome425. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious 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, and if it does not, 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:Justinrome425. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * pasting reply here, left on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Barber Surgeons Guild
 * I am NOT being paid with regards to the creation of Barber Surgeons Guild. Please advise next steps to remove deletion.  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinrome425 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. First please be aware that the question is broad, and not just about Barber Surgeon's Guild.  Please reply (and please reply here) as to whether you have been paid, or expect to be paid, for any of your edits.
 * Please be aware that there is a place for paid editing in Wikipedia (there really is), but you must work with the community to manage the conflict of interest it creates. I can explain that to you, but first things first.
 * With regard to your work on Barber Surgeon's Guild, your editing is exactly like that of someone with a conflict of interest.  Likewise, your approach to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, where we have articles that people can learn from. We are primarily here to help people learn.  This is not a directory or place for promotion, where companies have "profiles" as you mentioned here.
 * Finally, would you please clarify who you referred to, when you wrote "our" in this diff. And please reconsider your answer about paid editing. Please also disclose any other connection you have with companies or people about which or whom you have edited. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I do have ties to Barber Surgeons Guild but I am not being paid for editing as mentioned. I was tasked to create the page. I used the word “profile” incorrectly. What I meant is there are many corporation pages currently online. See drybar for example. I wrote the page unbiased and if you see any bias I’m happy to edit. Barber Surgeons Guild is a notable company that warrants recognition with a Wikipedia page. There are a number of national press articles published to support it. I really appreciate your time and consideration. I love Wikipedia and what it stands for. Best, justin Justinrome425 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply.  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 (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, 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 when you save your edit.  That is how we know who said what to whom and when.


 * Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).


 * I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Replying on the substance. You did not explain "our". Please do.  Please explain the context, in which someone "tasked" you to create the page. Please be forthright and explain what is going here, in the spirit of disclosure.
 * Please focus on this discussion and please stop talking about the article. Your reply should also help us understand all your editing thus far which is all on hair stuff.  I am not asking you to say who you are but you need to explain the context -- the connections and what kind  of organization you are in such that you can be "tasked" to edit here.
 * If you do not respond in a simple, full, and forthright manner in your next reply I will escalate this for administration action. I am busy in the real world and with things to do here in WP and do not have time for this dancing around. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. With respect to “our” and “tasked” I work for the company, Barber Surgeons Guild on the operations side. Instead of hiring a copywriter I wrote the content myslef. I hope this clarifies. Thank you. Justinrome425 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Justinrome425 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed the threading again. I will reply on the substance in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being more clear. You have been editing as part of your job, having been tasked to do it. That is "paid editing" in Wikipedia and not the least bit ambiguous. (I do understand that as BSG is a startup you may not be getting paid but you would have equity and that is consideration)
 * Please explain your editing on ARTAS System and Follicular unit extraction (which is actually about Artas) and any connection with Restoration Robotics; it is also purely commercial editing and calls out for explanation. I should not have had to ask this as I have asked twice already for a complete disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a hair restoration surgeon specializing in Follicular unit extraction. I have no connection to Restoration Robotics other than being familiar with their technology.  I updated the Follicular unit extraction article to include the types: Manual vs Robotic.  I also added some references with statistics based on recent peer reviewed journals.  Similarly I updated the article on ARTAS System to remove an erroneously reported statistic which was citing a blog post and replaced with correct statistics again from published peer reviewed journal articles.  Thanks, JustinJustinrome425 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also re:disclosures for the Barber Surgeon Guild article, is there a way I can create a disclosure somewhwhere and open the article back up for review? Thanks again. (I'm getting the hang of this indenting and signing! Thanks for the helpJustinrome425 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

(outdent!) Thanks for replying. This is what I pretty much figured was going on. My sense is that you probably use Artas in your practice, and you and your practice benefit financially from people having a positive view of the device and what it can do (I am very familiar with marketing of medical practices as well as medical devices and drugs, from my work here in WP).

So all your editing in Wikipedia thus far has been for personal financial benefit, and basically promotional. You are not unusual in doing so. Lots of people mistake mistake Wikipedia as a platform for promotion, but that is not what we are about here. The mission of Wikipedia is to educate people, and god help them, people actually come here hoping to find good information. Not marketing. My first edit here ten years ago was actually removing some advertisement that someone had, at some point, plopped into an article that I was reading intently, trying to learn something. Coming across that, was like stepping in dog shit. Completely distracting and very unpleasant. I don't want others to experience that.

I spend a lot of my volunteer time helping orient new people like you, to what we are actually about. To the mission. And to the ways that we realize the mission. I try to do that as efficiently as possible, as everybody is busy.

I'd like to ask you to read User:Jytdog/How which I wrote to try to provide a very clear orientation, as briefly as possible. When you are done, please also have a read of WP:EXPERT, which I think will help you in particular. There is a section in the "How" document about how we manage conflicts of interest here - I can help you with the mechanics of that once you are more grounded. (It is basically just like academic publishing -- disclosure and a form of peer review). Best regards Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, and I will read the references you suggest. To be clear though, the edits I made to the other articles where because I'm passionate about what I do and there was misleading information with poor references (from blogs not scientific journals) that were not evidence backed.  I had updated some items to bring them up to date with the current literature and publications.  Also back in medical school I had updated a number of medical articles to bring them up to date too- under a different login which I couldn't remember since it was a while ago.  I have nothing but respect for this community and its goals, and I do enjoy making sure what is out there is accurate and non-biased.  With this said, can you please advise what I can do to get an article approved for Barber Surgeons Guild.  According to what I've read, a company can have a wikipedia page as long as it has national press and is notable.  I had included national press references as well as described notable elements of the company. I'm happy to make any disclosures I need to or have somebody unrelated to the business write it.  What I don't understand is why some companies, again like drybar for example have approved articles published and we are met with difficulties here.  I really appreciate your help here and your time to make responses!Justinrome425 (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your editing has violated several policies and guidelines, and has done so in a way that is very obviously promotional. I realize that you don't understand what good editing in WP looks like. I hope you will at some point.  But first things first, and that is getting grounded on the mission and a sense of what the policies and guidelines are, and why they are that way. They are not just  arbitrary. Until you are grounded in how this place works and why, there is no point in talking about why your edits were unacceptable. I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)