User talk:Mahamenacloud

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tonix Pharmaceuticals (July 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zppix 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:Tonix Pharmaceuticals 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.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tonix Pharmaceuticals has been accepted
 Tonix Pharmaceuticals, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sulfurboy (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Tonix
Your editing on the Tonix article violated Wikipedia policy by omitting serious negative information and hyping the positive stuff.

If I find you continuing to offer distorted content like this to benefit your clients, I will seek to have you have banned from WP. The volunteer community does have the time or energy to go look for the stuff that editors like you try to leave out of Wikipedia.

Please take this very seriously. As a Wikipedia editor, you are obligated to follow the content policies and if your clients will not accept that, then you take work from them to your own detriment. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You left out the reverse merger background, the Phase III failure in fibromyalgia, and all the stuff about the horsepox vaccine. Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

My edits were narrowly focused on satisfying notability guidelines. Reverse mergers and failed programs are common in biotech. The added detail is welcome! Mahamenacloud (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what is common in biotech. And I do appreciate that you appropriately disclosed and put the piece through review instead of publishing directly, but the content still failed NPOV by miles. And if you keep doing that, I will seek to have you banned.  This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing platform. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing
Please stop editing the article directly. Please suggest content on the talk page.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, 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 through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the Articles for Creation process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) 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
 * (i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page (this is already done at the Tonix page); and
 * (ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the  tag to flag it for other editors to review.  In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once.  Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example.  This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

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. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia, and some who follow the COI guideline halfway, which is half good and half bad). Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Dislcosing locally
Thanks for disclosing at your userpage that United Neuroscience is now also a client of Russo. Thanks for not editing directly but instead proposing content here.

When you do that please: Thanks again for disclosing and not editing directly. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC) (clarify Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC))
 * also disclose locally -- there at the talk page -- that you are editing for pay; and please use the tag. The reason for this is to avoid any misunderstandings -- if editors respond to you here there at the talk page without going to look at your userpage (which folks don't normally do) and later find out that you are a paid editor, they might (and often do) feel burned.
 * make sure you sign your post by typing exactly four tildas after it. That creates links to your userpage and talk page and a time stamp.
 * I have signed your post, added the "paid contributor" tag to the top of the talk page, and added the "request edit" tag for you, in these diffs.


 * Happy to help, thanks for the tips Mahamenacloud (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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. We also "sign", which goes at the end of the comment -- you have that part down already.  But these two things - threading and signing - are 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 fixed your indenting above.


 * I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, should be able to handle that... Mahamenacloud (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)