Talk:Diffusion Pharmaceuticals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Companies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Request for guidance[edit]

Greetings: I am an editor of this article and have noted the new tags. Please help me make the article better by giving further guidance, examples of lack of neutrality or other comments on the article's deficiencies and I will be glad to edit appropriately. I appreciate the importance of neutrality and take all comments seriously. Thanks for the input. CrystlBluPersuason (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm too close to the article now to fairly evaluate it, but you might want to talk to the person who tagged it, NaturalScholar. I've added a heading to your message per the standard Wikipedia format; you can use the new section link (which is next to the edit link) to start a new section. Graham87 07:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
CrystlBluPersuason, the issue is your tie to the article subject as an insider, paid, and conflict-of-interest editor. Conflict of interest is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge." Do avoid creating articles and editing where you have a conflict of interest. Thank you.NaturalScholar (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
NaturalScholar, thanks for your feedback. Isn't the issue actually supposed to be neutral point of view? My interest is cancer research and emerging treatment modalities. The subject of the article is doing some interesting work in this regard which, in my view, merits an article. If you would point out particulars of lack of neutrality I would be glad to address them, or perhaps one of the other editors would. Maybe, like Graham87, I've gotten too close to the article to see the POV problem, but am willing to learn. CrystlBluPersuason (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute[edit]

This article has been tagged as needing cleanup and editing for NPOV. The tagger did not create a Talk Page section to specify problems or point out NPOV issues. The tagger did comment in response to a post asking for guidance that they believe the real issue is a perceived COI of a contributor and did not specify any NPOV problems. NPOV disputes are supposed to be guided by the tagger's creation of a related Talk Page section containing an explanation of the NPOV issue. Without such guidance at the time of the tag, it's difficult for anyone to do any cleanup or editing. My question is whether there is an actual NPOV dispute here which needs to be resolved or whether the article received a "drive by tagging." As a major contributor to the article, I am reluctant to be the one to remove such tags. I would appreciate input on the NPOV issue from other editors (or the tagger). How can the NPOV of the article be improved? Any recommendations? Finally, as a matter of Wikipedia etiquette and practice, are editors obligated to respond to unsupported allegations of COI? Thanks. CrystlBluPersuason (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Is There an NPOV Dispute?[edit]

No feedback has been posted on the talk page regarding areas of possible NPOV. Thus, it's hard to determine the areas for cleanup, or whether cleanup is actually needed. I did make another pass at the article and made some modifications of a few words that might be helpful. Without further communication from the tagger, I don't think the tags should be there, and hope that someone would remove them. CrystlBluPersuason (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections within the next week, I'll remove the tag. Your changes sound good to me. Graham87 14:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the article. CrystlBluPersuason (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries. It's been well over a week, so I've removed the tags. Graham87 01:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diffusion Pharmaceuticals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diffusion Pharmaceuticals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)