User talk:Capricornthought

hello, friends --Capricornthought (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Capricornthought. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. The Nina Teicholz page has been subject to a horrific amount of paid editing and conflict of interest editing and your edits there are somewhat odd. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Capricornthought. 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 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.

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. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Teicholz, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. Please be aware that if you are editing this or any other page for pay, you must disclose that. After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog,

Thanks for adding the guideline and resources here. I am already aware of these. I do not have connections to LeslieAun or this subject. I understand the “touchy” nature of this page given its history, but I also want to ensure that it is both unbiased and representative of her criticisms (positive and negative).

My immediate concern was that, in an effort to course-correct the LesliAun page to something more neutral, negative criticism of Nina’s book “The Big Fat Surprise” was overly accentuated on this new page. There are absolutely valid criticisms of her research, but those seem magnified on the page you have created. I will respond to your individual questions on the Nina Teicholz talk page.

When I was recently looking into keto diets for myself, I came across the book and it intrigued me. From the personal research I’ve done, the majority of sources I found had positive responses to her findings. So I was alarmed to see the vast majority of content on her page highlighting negative content - so much so that I too had considered a conflict of interest. If you read WP:NPOV guidelines you will see that these bullet points should match the page:

Avoid stating opinions as facts.
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
Avoid stating facts as opinions.
Prefer nonjudgmental language.
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

When I was reading opinion pieces listed as sources on the page, I had to question the word ‘criticized’ on an opinion rather than a fact. Again, I will also address specific questions you had on the Nina Teicholz Talk page. Thank you for your feedback, and I look forward to building a solid page with you. Capricornthought (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I fixed your "threading" above.

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 when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This 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 you already have this part down, but 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 insanely archaic and 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) 16:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to discuss content here - that is for the article talk page.

The key question here is whether you have any connection with Teicholz. You have said no; I hear that answer.

The other issue to keep in mind here is what we call "advocacy" (please have a look at that page). We get a lot of this in articles about diets, generally, along with actual conflict-of-interest editing from people who sell diet books and related products.

What NPOV means, is that we edit from the mainstream; the mainstream is the POV of Wikipedia.

Folks who regularly edit about health and medicine in WP keep in mind what the mainstream view on a healthy diet is (it is described in that article) Please keep this in mind.

You might want to read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat - it is very relevant here. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC) (strike that, not answered actually. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

My mistake with the indent, thanks for the helpful resource.

We can chat on the article talk page about content. I understand your concern with the "advocacy" resource page, that helps me to understand the direction you took when creating the page. I was just attempting to make the page as representative of the resources as possible. Again - I have no connection with the page, just seeing something different than you. Capricornthought (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Your editing is leading me to believe that you might have some connection with Teicholz. As I mentioned there have been shenanigans on that page, namely sockpuppeting (which is a form of lying) and undisclosed paid editing. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, okay - I will once again state that I have zero connection to the person or page. Thank you, I am aware of what sockpuppeting is and don't need you to post it here. I have posted to this page before and wanted to go back in and add more context in that section from the sources that are already there. If you think it's 'promotional' (like you posted previously and then removed) then you can go in and make another edit to make it better. It seems to me like you 100% have some close connection with the page or person yourself. After looking at the history here you seem to be a hawk here, which makes other users wonder what connection you have with the page. I apologize that I clearly offended you with my edits to this page, but I will once again state I have zero connection - just an editor interested in updated this page.Capricornthought (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of personal offense. I am indeed fierce about preventing WP from being abused. The issue is Teicholz coming to Wikipedia, and people coming to Wikipedia on behalf of Teicholz, to promote her and attack her enemies, the latter of which is behavior that is completely beyond the pale in Wikipedia. The Teicholz article will not have any promotion in it. Yes, I and others (including Bri, who like me works a lot on these issues in Wikipedia) are watching the page closely. You will do as you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense to then simply fix the edit instead of calling out every single user that ever edits her page in a way that you don't like? It is pretty insane to me that you will literally write all over my page when I added a sentence that literally comes directly from the source that is already on the page! You clearly have a connection with this page. Capricornthought (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again it is not about what "I like" or what "I feel". My rationale when I removed it included WP:UNDUE and the name-dropping detail is indeed UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you notice of the edit warring policy; by removing it you have acknowledged that you read it. I will also give you notice of the discretionary sanctions on biographies of living people in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A last note - you should be very careful with what you put in edit notes, as you did here, as you cannot go back and change it. Making a factual claim that I have a "connection with the page" is an unsubstantiated personal attack and if you continuing doing that, you will be sanctioned for it. Conflict of interest is a serious issue in WP. Raising questions is one thing; making factual statements like that is another altogether. So you should step carefully. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are out of control - I would read Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing guidelines. It's pretty amazing that you're upset with me for stating that you have a connection with the page when that's what you said to me from the beginning!!!!!! You should also step carefully - because by thretening me, that's also a personal attack. Capricornthought (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I am quite in control. Again I am not upset with you. This is not an emotional thing.

This account has few edits; I suggest you try to learn how Wikipedia works before you start working on difficult content.

I will not be replying here on this issue further, at this time. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about CertifiKID

Hello, Capricornthought,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether CertifiKID should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CertifiKID .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]