User talk:Todd at Figs

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

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited 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
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * 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! Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Questionable edits
Todd,

Thank you for getting in touch with me and doing things per policy.

It does seem kind of excessive for something that, while relatively recent, I had never heard of, and seems not to have continuing interest.

I looked into the article history to see who might have added this.

The first edits are from an IP,, which has made only those two edits. The first used a misleading edit summary to add some pejoratives to the lede; then after that was reverted added an unsourced section with a clear point of view that was also reverted; they were warned for both edits. Looks like someone was really angry about this.

A few hours afterward, added a more detailed section, more neutrally phrased, with sources, that's largely what's there now.

I do not think these two are the same person (I get the feeling there was some mailing list or private forum where some female osteopaths were expressing outrage, and one said "See what I did to their Wikipedia page!", leading someone else to try to do it the right way).

The IP resolves to somewhere in southeastern Alabama near the Georgia-Florida tristate point. That does not, of course, indicate anything about where whoever made those edits actually lives.

Lmq882 started editing Wikipedia last year and has kept a fairly low profile, not creating a user page and not doing anything that prompted any messages on their talk page. Most of their edits have been to a particular osteopathic college, and have consisted of adding affiliated hospitals, information that while not blatantly promotional are sort of, well, perhaps more detail than we really include in most of our articles about medical colleges. I have a feeling there's a connection there, and I should probably post a message about this on their talk page although I doubt I'll get a reply given their infrequent activity.

But, if there's a connection to an institution like that, it should be disclosed, as I think it colors the edit and does make a stronger case for a possible POV being involved. It does seem like Lmq was trying to be fair, but may have tried harder than necessary.

I'll bring this up on the article talk page, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks so much for your analysis of what happened to the Marketing section, and I am pleased that you seem to agree with me that the section is indeed too long. Anything that you can do to improve that section would be most appreciated. All the best, Todd at Figs (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I would have gotten to it a week ago but something on another website I contribute to wound up taking up more of my time than I expected it to. Thanks for the nudge! Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)