User talk:Dloyle

Welcome!

Hello, Dloyle, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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. 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, 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).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mduvekot (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Sunil Thomas has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sunil Thomas. Thanks! Mduvekot (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sunil Thomas (August 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for academics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There are notability issues and tone issues. Focus on what others have written about his work or about how his work has advanced the fields in which he is working. Statements like: "Unfortunately, there are no medications to prevent onset or to cure those living with the disease," while true, should not be in the voice of Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sunil Thomas and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Dloyle, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing

Hello, Dloyle. 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. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. 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. Melcous (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Susan K. Gilmour, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in the course of your employment

Hello Dloyle. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, 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:Dloyle. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dloyle|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. 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. Template:Z159 Melcous (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to complete the disclosure, but the URL you sent in the word Paid is crashing my browser (I'm using Explorer).

OK, I was able to disclose. Thanks for the heads up. Happy Holidays, Melcous.

Thank you. There can be a lot to learn when you're new to wikipedia, and there are often particular concerns regarding conflict of interest and paid editing due to many past bad experiences, so it can be a good idea to take it slow. And if you have questions, please ask! Just one more thing for now, when you leave a message on a talk page like you did above (so here or on an article talk page or on another editor's talk page - basically whenever you are communicating with other editors, but not when editing articles) please "sign" your posts by including four tildes (~ this symbol) at the end. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that as a paid editor you need to disclose this on the talk pages of any articles you make paid edits to, and in the edit summaries of any edits you make to those articles. I have added the appropriate disclosure for you to Talk:Peter R. Kowey after you removed the COI notice on that article, but please do the same for any other articles you have edited in the course of your employment. thanks, Melcous (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. If you need to check me, I have worked on these pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Antzelevitch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_K._Gilmour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Heber-Katz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lankenau_Institute_for_Medical_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Sawicki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan-Xin_Yan Dloyle (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Donna, but you need to include the formatting not just the text to make it work - I have done it for you on Talk:Charles Antzelevitch but it's probably good to have a go yourself and get the hang of it - you should be able to go to that article and click "edit", then copy the relevant text with formatting, and paste that on the other talk pages in place of what you have currently put. Let me know if you want me to help further. Melcous (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing in Wikipedia (continuing the discussion above)

Hi Dlolyle - thanks for working with Melcous above and elsewhere to get the disclosure piece of the conflict of interest management process done.

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. 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, and it is good that is done.

The second is prior review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. It is not OK to be here only to promote Lankenau and its faculty - content you add needs to be aiming for Wikipedia's mission. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where a company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the XXX article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog, thank you for the heads up and the information. I will abide by the rules you've noted. I was a daily newspaper and national business magazine editor for 25 years, so I understand about editing to specs. I also will try to address the issues that WP editors have already placed on LIMR's articles by, for examples, adding citations where requested and fixing the tone to better match style. Do I need to alert you that I'm doing that? Also, what is the best way to simply update information -- for example, a researcher was striving to answer a question two years ago (when the article was first accepted and published on WP), and now he/she has answered that question. Do you consider that promotion or facts? Donna Loyle Dloyle (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are things like a date, or where an office is. What you are talking about is not a simple fact at all. Please stop editing directly. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Melcous (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to update dead links?

How do I update dead links? For example, we have a new website for LIMR. I am trying to update the links for that, but I don't know how to do it.

As you have a WP:COI you have been requested not to edit those articles but directly but to propose changes on the talk pages instead. You can do this using the Template:Request Edit. Melcous (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

To avoid promotionalism in articles about academic:

do not use their name too often:"she"or "he" is usually better
Do not include minor or in-house awards
Do not include grants received
Always list the 3 or 4 most important papers, on the basis of such factors as citations. Do not list more than that. Do not include a count of total papers.
Do not include routine clinical positions supplemental to a major position. (watch out for "Adjunct").
Do not fomat a list of papers as external links.
Describe what they have worked on,; do not explain why it is important or what ultimate medical problem they hope it might eventually solve.
Try to write as concisely as possible.

I've made some corrections; many more are needed. I suggest that you go back and make them. They're the sort of improvements you can make yourself--you don't need to ask first. I am willingto defend your articles, but only if you fix them.

similarly with articles about organizations. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia editors, With all due respect, you cut the text regarding the research for which the Lankenau Institute for Medical Research's scientists are renowned. I'm confused by that action because the instructions for academic postings state that the work for which they are known should be included. Instead, the postings now, after your cuts, include just their current titles and where they went to school, almost nothing about what they are doing in research to warrant being posted on your site in the first place. By the way, I'm a professional editor having worked for 25 years in large daily metropolitan newspapers and business magazines, so I understand (probably more so than most of the posters you deal with) about a need to cut text. Moreover, I agree that the postings previously were too long. But to cut them as you've done seems to me a step too far. What do you suggest that I do to remedy this situation? Donna Loyle Dloyle (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and your colleagues have terribly abused your editing privileges and have harmed the integrity of Wikipedia.

What you should do is explained above in the section User_talk:Dloyle#Conflict_of_interest_editing_in_Wikipedia_(continuing_the_discussion_above).

If you continue editing directly, I will recommend that you be indefinitely blocked, and I am pretty sure I will get consensus for that, given your behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG this person should not be encouraged to edit directly. They have completely ignored our COI management process even though I and others took the time to explain it, and if they edit directly anywhere again instead of offering suggestions on Talk, I will be asking the community to indef them. Please amend your advice. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with COI is a matter of judgment, and our judgment on this seems to differ. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COIN discussion

I should give you notice of this: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Academic_spamming_the_long_arm_of_Lankenau_Institute_for_Medical_Research Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workspace

Hi Dloyle.

user:DGG and I had a chat. Here is what we decided might be the most helpful thing.

I've set up a page here: Talk:Lankenau Institute for Medical Research/workspace that is not in mainspace, so you can edit it directly. It is this version of the page.

Can you please turn that into a decent Wikipedia article? If you want an example, you can look at MSKCC, which I cooperated with a paid editor in almost completely overhauling.

The sources should be independent of the institute, and the goal should be to provide encyclopedic content from which people can learn. You should summarize what the sources say. (citations in Wikipedia are not "examples" -- we rely on them, we summarize them. They have authority, not us. I think I provided this to you before, but please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of the mission of the editing community, how we realize it, and why. There is a section there, about writing a new article as well.

Are you willing to take a shot at that? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing George Prendergast's photo

The photo of Dr. Prendergast that is on this page is about 20 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Prendergast

I have a new photo. How do I post it? I uploaded it in WikiCommons, but I can't figure out how to designate it to Dr. Prendergast's profile.

The photo was taken by a freelance photographer hired by LIMR to take professional headshots of our scientists. Dloyle (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Loyle