User talk:Subicculum

Welcome!
Hello, Subicculum, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Simufilam, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Best practices for editors with close associations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Firefangledfeathers. I notice from prior history of this and related pages that you and SandyGeorgia may have your own conflicts. Please disclose if you or she/they are paid for your monitoring of these pages. I am not. Just a concerned scientist. Subicculum (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Subicculum. Thank you for answering the question. I don't have any COI when it comes to Cassava/simufilam and haven't been paid to edit any page. I can't speak for Sandy, but it would be the shocker of the century. It's a bit harder to tell with brand new accounts that focus exclusively on one subject, especially when there's been (as is the case here) a years-long issue of COI editing. Please use the article talk page to build consensus for your changes, and it'll all be good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi FFF, These pages have been called out for being one-sided in the past. Why should the FDA docket not be quoted precisely? Because SG wants you to think that the FDA can't just stop trials, which they do all the time. The petition avenue was abused as a publicity stunt because the petitioners WERE ALSO short sellers (critically, and non-compliantly, not disclosed at the time of the petition) AND they brought no actual evidence. This needs to be stated upfront. So please reinsert this important secondary citation. Also, if scientific articles are considered primary, why are some allowed and others -- like the most recent one -- not? This also clearly shows her COI. You can't have it both ways -- sorry. Subicculum (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're coming out of the gates pretty hot with some misconduct allegations and mind-reading. Can I convince you to drop that and focus on content? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK -- these pages are over a year old. Why don't you start with updating them with the most recent clinical data? Both have secondary citations, but these were removed? Why, because they are positive. These pages currently read as fully negative. Anything positive has been scrubbed. Can you tell me why? The Compliance Weekly article should absolutely be cited. Yet is it removed, to keep things one-sided. Same with the recent articles about promising clinical data. The world should know about it, yet it is being suppressed here on wiki. You should care. Subicculum (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your arguments sound very similar to all the other single purpose accounts that have edited the Cassava articles. And please stop accusing Sandy of having a COI without any evidence whatsoever. SmartSE (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * SmartSE, Please tell me why then Sandy's edits are always so one-sided. I took the time to review the history before editing. Any attempt to make it more balanced has been quickly removed. One user simply asked for more balance (because the petitioners are short sellers who profited from their own petition) and she was accused of a "flat earth" argument. Like thousands of other people, I have been following this Alzheimer's disease drug candidate for over two years. Yet the Wiki page is only representing negative news on this drug candidate. These editors are selectively cutting out news that keeps the page balanced. Subicculum (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is my alleged conflict ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your history of editing has been biased, not balanced, and that suggests a COI, along with your swift reversal of edits that make this page more balanced. Why, for example, do you remove primary sources that are peer-reviewed publications, stating they are not allowed because they are primary, but you leave irrelevant ones that are also primary so you can note two (on opioid receptors) that were retracted? Why did you remove the edit that the reason for the EOCs for two others is because the editors are acknowledging the CUNY investigation that is still ongoing? Honestly, are you being paid for this work? Or is there some other reason for this apparent bias? Subicculum (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't like my edits, so you accuse me of being a paid editor; interesting. Have your read WP:ASPERSIONs?  Don't. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Answer the question. And why did you remove two secondary sources citing clinical data that 47% of patients improved after a year on the drug, and a separate one, stating that a 205% slowing of decline in mild patients was observed? No reason other than bias. Subicculum (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can clarify what your understanding of "secondary source" vs. a "primary source" is (pls have a look at WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for biomedical content). I removed primary sources. I share SmartSe's concern about the similarity between your editing and past SPAs.  For example, it's unclear why you are going on about Compliance Week(ly sic), when a) it is in the article, and b) it was me who added the content after I gained access to the article.  And I share Firefangledfeather's concern that you are coming out of the starting gate hot, casting baseless aspersions, and not fully informed about the state of the articles or Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  I wonder where you are getting your information: please have a look at WP:MEAT.   And no, I have never edited for pay, although I've been asked to scores of times.  If you are concerned about bias or conflict or that I may be engaging in paid editing, you can run it by WP:ANI for other opinions. But you can't keep casting aspersions based on no evidence. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I recently added this Compliance Week citation to note that the FDA petitions were filed by short sellers (very important context and context that should have been disclosed when filing the petitions yet were not). This citation added recently by me is not now in the reference list for the simufilam page -- maybe you are talking about another page. Simufilam is what I have edited, and my edits were reversed by you. I also added two secondary sources in the lead discussing clinical data released in 2023 (two separate studies) and these were removed. The positive clinical data is important context for the allegations of fraud. How can it be fraud if the drug actually works? So why were these removed? We should all be trying to keep things balanced, especially in the lead. Subicculum (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:MEDRS yet? Have you read WP:PRIMARY? Primary studies are not secondary sources even if peer reviewed.  And Compliance Week content is covered at Cassava Sciences, not at Simufilam, because one article is about the company, and the other is about the drug. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Re your question about this edit that reverted a series of your edits; have a look at WP:POV re your selective use of a cherry-picked quote in the lead, and your introduction of primary sources to the body of the article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/SighSci. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 19:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)