User talk:Manu923

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
 * 6) More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
 * 7) Citation details are important:
 * 8) *Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
 * 9) *Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
 * 10) *Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 11) We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 12) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
 * 13) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 14) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Manu923. I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. I am not an administrator. Your edits to date are promotional with respect to LFB. Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages conflict of interest. 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, Manu923. 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. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

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. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.
 * Comments and requests

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 LFB, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it, and if you are editing for pay or the expectation of being paid, you must disclose that. After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for your swift edit. I believe previous contributions to this page are also promotional with respect to other companies namely: GlycArt Biotechnology, Roche and Kyowa Hakko Kirin.
 * Thus, and very respectfully, I don't see the reason why not to mention LFB. Anyway, I will delete this name and link, as per your request. Best Manu923. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu923 (talk • contribs) 4:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying!  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 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) 14:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I tried to ask you nicely to disclose. Please see below. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory paid editing disclosure
Hello Manu923. 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:Manu923. 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) 14:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your comment and my apologies since I am brand new to Wikipedia.

I confirm that I am NOT directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. My edit had nothing to do with my employer and affiliation and I have no client per se. My edit is only aiming to complete that topic for which 3 main steps are currently mentioned whereas there are actually at least 4, related to the discovery of afucosylated antibodies. Hope this helps.Manu923 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Please indent your comments and please sign your posts. Again, failing to do this is rude, especially after it has been explained to you. 2) Thanks for answering about whether you are paid. Please reply above and disclose your relevant relationships. Your edits are those of a new person who is very obviously conflicted.  This is obvious to experienced editors. I can help you get oriented but you need to be forthright. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. Things are becoming clear now. Please see below. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Working in Wikipedia
Thanks for disclosing that you work at Servier.

As I mentioned above, conflict of interest is managed in Wikipedia, much like it is, in scientific publishing. But it is a little different here, because people can keep their identity private if they want. That puts a different sort of twist on things, as I hope you can imagine.

In scientific publishing, people write under their real names, and they disclose their conflict of interest. Peer reviewers read submitted manuscripts with that COI in mind, and if the paper is eventually published, people in the scientific community read the paper, with the COI in mind. I am sure you are very familiar with all of that.

Here is Wikipedia, for disclosure, we ask people to disclose relevant relationships. That is the disclosure step.

The "peer review" step happens here as well, but in a different way. 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 voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask of editors 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 tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC 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 tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the 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 on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place 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 conflicted editors here, who follow the COI management process, and there are people who ignore it or try to hide, who harm the encyclopedia and the editing community)

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

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 where the company has offices) 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. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to 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. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Jytdog
@Jytdog: Thank you very much for providing such helpful information. I will do my best to respect rules and codes for Wikipedia even if I have quite a hard time with the computing codes. Indeed I am a biochemist and not used to computer languages at all. Sorry for that. Please let me know if the following edit would be appropriate: ==== Based on extensive characterization of multiple anti-RhD monoclonal antibodies intended for the prevention of the hemolytic disease of the newborn (i.e., erythroblastosis fetalis), Emmanuel Nony and colleagues from LFB concluded in March 2001 that the presence of fucose within the Fc part of an IgG1 is detrimental to the antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) of such antibodies. Those findings were later published and patented. ==== I expect to add a link for both the publication and patent, if acceptable. Thank you again for your help with my first steps in Wikipedia! Best regards--Manu923 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Very briefly -- what we do in Wikipedia, is summarize reliable sources.  We don't write what we know, and stick citations behind that, which somehow "prove" it.  Do you see how that is different?  The kind of source for the content you are proposing, would need to be some document that is actually discussing Nony and colleagues work on fucose and antibodies. Ideally that would be an independent source (like a review paper or book chapter discussing the history of afucosylated mAbs, written by somebody other than Nony or people at LFB)  Do you see what I mean?  Lots of experts write like you suggest there, because this is exactly how they write, when they are writing a research paper or review article.  But that is not what we do here, and there is very good reason for that.
 * This is explained in both WP:EXPERT and User:Jytdog/How, both of which are intended to help experts get oriented to this very strange writing environment.
 * Responding in some more detail
 * On the content, we generally don't name individual scientists in general descriptions of science. We do name them sometimes in "History" sections.   Many places where you see a scientist named in Wikipedia, are the results of abuse of Wikipedia for self-promotion.
 * With regard to the sources, patents are not considered "reliable sources" in Wikipedia -- they are one of the examples we use for a self-published source> The scientific paper is what we call a "primary" source, and we use them rarely and with great care.  We prefer what we call "secondary" sources.  (See WP:MEDDEF or WP:SCIDEF, which is the same).
 * Are you aware of any independent, secondary sources that discuss the role of Nony et al in figuring out the tox problems with fucose? If so, we could generate content from that reference.  Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC) (strike, sorry)

@Jytdog:
 * Thank you so much again. This is getting clearer for me now.
 * There is no toxicity problems with fucose, it simply makes monoclonal antibodies less prone to kill cells such as cancer cells for instance. This is the reason why afucosylated (w/o fucose) antibodies are more efficacious to kill cancer cells.
 * I agree with you I should not mention a patent. The main publication describing our findings regarding fucose is this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16332457.
 * The team from INSERM René Descartes-Paris University (with myself) made a very significant contribution as early as 2001 regarding afucosylated antibodies.
 * This is the reason why I wish I could edit the related topic by adding a fourth contribution in addition to the ones made by GlycArt Biotechnology, Roche and Kyowa Hakko Kirin companies.
 * "Based on extensive characterization of multiple anti-RhD monoclonal antibodies intended for the prevention of the hemolytic disease of the newborn (i.e., erythroblastosis fetalis), Emmanuel Nony and his colleagues concluded in March 2001 that the presence of fucose within the Fc part of an IgG1 is detrimental to the antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) of such antibodies. Those findings were later published."
 * Those are the true facts, even if quite old, since this study was performed back in 2000-2001.
 * I sincerely appreciate your help for this topic. Best regards Manu923 (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so gracious. I am very happy to help.  We love expert contributors, and there are many of them who have taken the time to understand how we generate content and who make great contributions. Sometimes these conversations go very badly; academics sometimes are unable to see that Wikipedia is different and strange, and they leave here angry.  So, again, thanks for being gracious.
 * Are you aware of any review articles or books or book chapter that discuss your role, naming you? That is what we need. (independent, secondary sources are the foundation of great content in WP).  And yes it would be great to have references that discuss what is going on commercially, that we could summarize in order to have content about what is going on.
 * I will look for such sources too, over the next few days. I have been wanting to come back and flesh out this article more, so am glad for your attention to it.  Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:
 * Delighted to read your post once again and to realize that this article maters for you. Honestly, it does for me as well.
 * Briefly, back in 2001 when I discovered the role of fucose, I was not allowed to publish and my supervisor did not care at all about such finding. Fortunately, everything was rigorously written in my laboratory notebook and other teams further developed this approach. Finally, 5 years later we were allowed to publish with collaborators from Paris University and eventually patents were filed. Sorry if this might be boring for you but I believe that our team in Paris made a great contribution to this topic, and afucosylated antibodies are now considered as an important weapon in order to better cure specific cancers.
 * In this regard, I suggest you look at this publication (that unfortunately does not cite our work) that is indeed an excellent review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29733746
 * I guess you must also be a scientist and I look forward to reading from you. All the best, Emmanuel Manu923 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)