User talk:Swelgemoed

Welcome!

Hello, Swelgemoed, and welcome to Swelgemoed! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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! -- Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of 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)
 * Manual of Style

Conflict of interest editing in Wikipedia
Hi Swelgemoed. I work on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia, as well as articles about health. Your edits to Richmond Pharmacology‎ caught my eye, especially your edit note here and the nature of your edits. I am giving you notice of our conflict of interest guideline and Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Please read the following, and then see the comments and questions below..

Hello, Swelgemoed. 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 on Wikipedia, 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. Thank you.

Comments and requests
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. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. I'm assuming in good faith that you are editing here under your real name, and if so, you are the Marketing Manager at Richmond Pharmacology. Would you please confirm that you have this relationship with Richmond?

Once you do that, we can discuss a bit how that role creates a conflict with your responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor. One thing I do here, is help people see conflicts of interest they have (as we define COI in WP) and understand the problems that COI poses in WP, and help editors learn to follow our guidelines for managing conflict of interest. (We manage COI in WP - we don't eliminate it)   For new editors, explaining all that also involves some explanation of how this place works generally - what the relevant policies and guidelines are, that govern how all of us edit and behave.

In any case, I look forward to hearing from you about my question above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You have continued to edit without replying here. Would you please reply?  Please especially note that the discussion about the Terms of Use above.  If you continue to be unresponsive, I'll be opening a case at the COI Noticeboard; I would prefer to deal with things one on one here, but I cannot if you don't engage.  I look forward to hearing from you. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have escalated this, to tagging the article and talk pages of the relevant articles. Please do respond here - there is a place for company representatives in Wikipedia, but only if you are sensitive to our policies and guidelines.  The way you are behaving so far is going to lead you to getting blocked from editing -- editing is a privilege (one that is freely offered to all) that can be lost.  Please do respond.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs) 11:37, 4 August 2015  (UTC)

Your contributed article, Richmond Pharmacology Limited


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Richmond Pharmacology Limited. 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 – Richmond Pharmacology. 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 Richmond Pharmacology – 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 "Click here to 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.  Seagull123  Φ  12:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * removing all controversies or negative viewpoints is not what to do. Please read the message on your talk page about conflicts of interest before continuing to edit articles you have an external relationship with. Also, there are now three articles with different names but with very similar content, two of which were created by you.  Seagull123  Φ  13:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Richmond Pharmacology at St George’s University of London


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Richmond Pharmacology at St George’s University of London. 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 – Richmond Pharmacology. 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 Richmond Pharmacology – 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 "Click here to 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.  Seagull123  Φ  12:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015 part 2
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Deb (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your options
You can politely request edits on Talk:Richmond Pharmacology. These requests should be specific (e.g. "add the following text to the second paragraph") and must be supported by references to reliable independent sources, not recycled press releases, aka churnalism. Do not be tempted to make accusations of bad faith. You can ask CorporateM for advice, he has walked this minefield before.

Wikipedia is happy to include supportive content as well as critical content. Wikipedia does not exclude widely publicised negative material. Richmond tried to derail an important initiative in drug transparency, and they are going to have to live with the PR fallout.

If you carry on as-is, you will be blocked from editing. That more or less guarantees that you won't get what you want, so I don't recommend that course of action. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

IP address
Don't know if you are aware of this, but IP addresses are traceable. http://whois.domaintools.com/217.206.184.76 goes to your company. Would you please start talking with us? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
You appear to be editing now via. Please log in when you edit. thanks.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Richmond Pharmacology. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

ANI
I am seeking to have you banned from Wikipedia.

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Richmond Pharmacology COI
Hi Deb, Seagull123, Jytdog, All - I apologize for the lack of communication, I have being trying to gain a clearer understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am the marketing manager for Richmond Pharmacology and our recent edits to the page created by JzG, were done in good faith. We felt the original content was intended to put the company in bad light following recent legal proceedings with the HRA. Our reasons for recent edits made are as follows:

1. The omission of academic research is unreasonable, as its factual and referenced. Therefore it is a removal of relevant and factual information presumably motivated by the malicious intent to smear the organisation.

2. The reference to Metro provided does not support that Richmond pays up to £2,000 therefore this a pure fabrication by the Wikipedia contributor. The article asks the question whether £2,000 are enough to be a guinea pig and Richmond Pharmacology is mentioned there.

3. The Dhaliwal case is misrepresented as the reference clearly states the borderline nature; a far cry from “won” which suggests that she was awarded damages. The case is irrelevant to the entry and not reflective of the organisation. It has presumably been added by JzG out of malicious intent to lower the reputation of the organisation and its officers.

All the text provided in our recent edits is factual and to the point and unlike previous editions are well referenced. We welcome new additions so long as they are balanced. We also welcome your recommendation on how to improve the content so that it is completely neutral and complies with your COI policy. Please kindly advise how we can resolve this amicably.

Regards Swelgemoed (talk), 09:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.106.121 (talk)
 * Thanks for starting to talk with the community. It took a threat of banning you, but better late than never.  First of all, as you note, you are new here, and your first steps in this place have all been bad.  I strongly suggest that you change your approach - that you slow down and learn before you start to make strong claims about what is valid and invalid Wikipedia editing.  Also, one of our most important policies here is assume good faith.  Throughout your message above, which you have put in several places in Wikipedia, you violate that policy by making claims throughout that message ascribing  "malicious intent" and the like to editors here. I am unwilling to engage with you as long as you are taking that stance, which is ugly and violates a key policy.
 * You can back off that stance by striking your message everywhere you have placed it, by placing in front of it and after it, which will result in this: strike .  This is described in WP:REDACT.
 * I am willing to work with you (I work with conflicted editors a lot) but only if you show you understand the importance of our policies and guidelines, and that you make an effort to learn them and follow them. I look forward to your response. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I have done as you have requested. These comments were not directed at Wiki moderators but rather the individual who initially created the page. We still feel the earlier omission of "academic research" was unreasonable, could you explain why it could not be included? We also feel that inclusion of section on the Dhaliwal case is irrelevant to the entry and not reflective of the organisation. Please kindly advise how we can rectify this? Thanks in advance for your help. Swelgemoed (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking. Directing comments like that at anybody Wikipedia is out of bounds - we discuss content, not contributors, generally speaking, and when we talk about what is up with one another, we do it respectfully.
 * Turning to content, please discuss that at the article talk page. For what it's worth I advise you not to request changes based on how you or anybody else "feels".  How anybody feels is not a valid basis for changing WP content. If you want to become more comfortable with the content of this Wikipedia article, I suggest you ask authentic questions on the Talk page, and read the links to policies and guidelines that you will be pointed to, and think about the response to your question in light of what you had read.  And if you still don't understand, ask again. There is a learning curve here.  If that is not worth your effort, then you should know that others will soon think it is not worth much effort responding to you.  Good luck! (and i mean that) Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)