User talk:Princessella123

Conflict of interest, disclosure required
Hello, Princessella123. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Matthias Hentze, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. This message is being posted because you noted at Wikimedia Commons that you are the subject's personal assistant and presumably being paid as such, likely making your contribution here prohibited paid advocacy. — Brianhe (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Brianhe, Thanks for your message. I've made myself familiar with the Terms of use and added a disclosure comment on my user page. I'm sorry if I missed to be transparent from the very start. Could you offer advice on how to improve the article and most importantly, make it "less advertisy"? I would appreciate if we could find a way so that the article can stay on wikipedia and comply with the regulations. Thanks for your feedback. Princessella123 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Princessella. I work with Brianhe and others on COI issues in Wikipedia. The article about Hentze needs a LOT of work.  The key thing that we need, is references for every single statement in that article.  Right now most of it is not sourced.  Could you please read the article, sentence by sentence, and provide a source for each sentence?  Ideally


 * It is a little tricky, because as an editor with a COI you cannot directly edit the article anymore.


 * Briefly, conflict of interest is managed in Wikipedia in two steps: disclosure of the conflict, and offering edits on the Talk page for others to review instead of directly editing the article.   You have already disclosed the relationship, so the first part is done.  Going forward, please do not edit the article directly, but rather offer suggestions at the article's Talk page.  You can do that easily -  and provide notice to the community of your request -  by using the "edit request" function we have here. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page -  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. The edit notice "pings" the community to let everyone know that an editor with a COI has made a suggestion.


 * So, would you please find sources for every sentence, and suggest them on the talk page? If you cannot find a source please let us know so we can remove the information. Thanks.   You can reply here if you have any questions or want to discuss anything, or you can ask at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog, Thanks for your detailed comment. I've done as you suggested - thanks for making it easy with inserting the "click here" button. I've done my best to support every statement with a reference and would very much appreciate a timely adjustment of the changes. In addition, and also in the case that the information provided should not suffice, I'd kindly like to ask you to take the article "offline" because Matthias feels the disclaimers to be defamatory. I'm happy to help and gather more information if needed and am very much interested in finding a solution to this issue. Again, thanks for your valuable response. Princessella123 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your contributions on Matthias Hentze
Since you have already disclosed your COI, I would like to draw your attention to a few points about the article.

As far as I can see, there is a lot of content, but just one inline citation, definitely not enough for such a (relatively) long article. I have therefore tagged it using the template.

Secondly, I see that you wish to add some of his research into the article. Bear in mind that there is a Wikipedia policy (see WP:OR), which might happen, though not likely, in the article.

Finally, please be reminded that although you may be paid to write the article, Hentze does not own (see WP:OWN) the article. Therefore, we can't just edit in accordance to his preference. What he says himself has no weight on Wikipedia, unless information is published in a secondary or third party source.

The Average Wikipedian (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Average Wikipedian, Thanks for your comment. I wonder if you are referring to the article itself or the "talk page". If you were referring to the talk page (I was asked to enter my request edit there), I wonder why you say there is only one inline citation when there are actually 28 references. Just in case this is a misunderstanding, could you please double-check? Thank you. Princessella123 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the article itself. Upon reading your request edit, I have found a few minor issues, but otherwise it is quite neutral. It would be a bit better if there would be a reference to the family. If there isn't a reliable source and the family is not particularly relevant, it may or may not be deleted.


 * A minor style problem: 3'end should be styled as 3&prime;-end, and it can be linked to Directionality (molecular biology), where there is a subsection.


 * Also, according to Wikipedia guidelines, it is suggested that these quotation marks "" be used instead of these “”.


 * Some of the references have links that don't work (for example, citation number 28 to the TiBS Editorial Board). It is suggested that you use full citations, which include the date retrieved, so as to prevent this problem which is known as linkrot.


 * For the external links section, could you clarify why you added the words "At Heidelberg University Hospital"?


 * The Average Wikipedian (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Average Wikipedian, Thanks for your feedback. I was glad to read that you were, all in all, happy with the current content of the article (request edit). I've just sent another request edit and incorporated your suggestions. I checked the "" again and only found the regular ones you also quoted.


 * I double-checked all links and updated the ones that lead nowhere, sorry about any earlier errors.


 * I further removed the additional words "At Heidelberg University Hospital".


 * I've added a comment in my request edit and would be grateful if you or one of your fellow Wikipedians could have a look and let me know if the edit will be approved.


 * Many thanks, Princessella123 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)