User talk:Recbcd

Welcome!
Hello, Recbcd, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ozerki (Historical district in Saint Petersburg), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 331dot (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Your contributed article, Ozerki (Historical district in Saint Petersburg)


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Ozerki (Historical district in Saint Petersburg). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Ozerki (Historic district in Saint Petersburg). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Ozerki (Historic district in Saint Petersburg) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 removed 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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Recbcd. 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. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup you need to address this concern before you edit further. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not have any COI linked to Portola Pharm products. I provided sources for all my statements. If any of my edits look promotional to you - please, edit them instead of wiping. Otherwise imho you do more harm than benefit. --Recbcd (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this statement. On your user page you identify as a member of the Almazov National Medical Research Centre. Expert knowledge is highly appreciated as this is the best kind of contribution we can get on Wikipedia and many medical professionals, such as, provide valuable expert knowledge. Having said that, there is an inherent conflict - not just on Wikipedia but probably also in the real world - between research activity that relies heavily on funding, including from the pharma industry, and neutrality. I'm not saying you are necessarily conflicted, but we need to be mindful when making edits in our subject matter areas where we also have potential economic interest with grants and other funding. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So are on a team that is studying any Portola Pharm products? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. --Recbcd (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory paid editing disclosure
You haven't responded to the two questions about conflict of interest with regard to Portola above. I am escalating this.

Hello Recbcd. 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:Recbcd. 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) 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am not paid for my edits. Neither am I affiliated with Portola. --Recbcd (talk) 04:39, 5 November 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 so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. Threading/indenting 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) 14:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for replying. All of your edits since October are about Portola and its products and are unambiguously promotional; the sourcing about the drugs is unacceptable per WP:MEDRS. You wrote nothing about adverse effects.  It is not credible that you have no connection with this company. Please reconsider your answer and disclose any connection. Connections include being an employee or contractor for the company, and being a stock holder. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * fwiw your edits are exactly those of some shareholders of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals who were abusing WP to promote the company and its pipeline products. When I came across their editing and cleaned it up they had a conniption at the stock-floggers forum where they were discussing the company and how to edit WP about the company. If you google "jytdog" and "avid" (company changed its name) you can find their bellowing. Your editing is just like theirs - about a publicly traded biotech company and its products, adding stock-flogging promotional garbage about their "promising" products, not aimed at the mission of WP. Disgusting. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not true that I didn't mention side effects. See my edits of cerdulatinib page. If you think, that information on side effects is important - go add it by yourself instead of writing tons of flood here. --Recbcd (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that in this diff you added adverse effects from early stage trials. Unsourced. Along with the bilge.  You have given no explanation for your recent exclusive focus on this company and its products nor for the blatantly promotional editing.
 * btw I haven't started really fixing this yet to avoid edit warring with you. Your behavior and approach to WP needs to be addressed first or there will just be more disruption later. So please make the relevant disclosures, and we can take it from there.  The end of this process will likely either be a) that you understand what you should be doing and can edit better later or b) an indefinite block.  Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thats enough. You seem to be familiar with WP rules. How can I report your actions for arbitrage?--Recbcd (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be better to deal with the issues here, simply. I will file a case at WP:COIN which is where issues of WP:APPARENTCOI get worked out. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Cerdulatinib, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Betrixaban, and Andexanet alfa 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) 14:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Portola Pharmaceuticals
Hello, Recbcd,

Thanks for creating Portola Pharmaceuticals! I edit here too, under the username Rosguill and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 05:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The need for reliable sources
You said while reverting me "You can check it yourself. Just try to open sci-hub.se from any russian proxy" This shows a failure to understand how we work on Wikipeida. We base our work here on reliable sources, we do not under any circumstances direct editors to check for themselves. This would be original research. Expecting our readers to each check this for themselves by first finding a Russian proxy and then using it is OTT. What you need to do is to find a reliable source and then nobody needs to check it. However, do not revert this again without adding a reliable source. Thanks. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)