User talk:Barryfc101

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Barryfc101. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Barryfc101. I'm guessing based on your activity that you are picking up where the now-blocked JTCommunications123 account left off.

Would you please have a look at the WP:PAID policy, the WP:COI guideline, and Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms?

I can walk you through the COI management process here in Wikipedia, and get you oriented to the content policies and guidelines - just reply here after you have read that stuff and we can talk a bit. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a reply from you here, Barry. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my complete lack of understanding. I am a true novice to posting etc.. With regard to Draft:Tonix Pharmaceuticals‎ I built this entry a to mimic other Corporate sites I found on Wikipedia, so I am struggling to understand why it was flagged? I have posted only facts about the company and have made no claims. I understand there is an issue with usage on the logo, and I will fix that, but can you help me understand why Draft:Tonix Pharmaceuticals‎ is not OK when other corporate sites are OK?Barryfc101 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reply. Would you please reply to what I wrote above? You need to declare paid editing and/or conflict of interest. We need to establish this baseline before we can go forward and talk about content. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have declared paid editing and disclose the information accordingly. I hope that has answered your question?Barryfc101 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Glad you are figuring out the talking-to-each-other thing here in WP. It is really important. OK, see below! Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the other place where you should disclose is on your Userpage here: User:Barryfc101. Just something simple like: I work for JeneneThomasCommunications and Tonix Pharmaceuticals is a client. If you start to work on other articles, you should disclose on the relevant talk page and it to your Userpage too. That takes care of the disclosure requirements. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks so much for the help. I will do that now. I have to admit I am very excited to be gaining a better understanding of Wikipedia. I look forward to contributing.Barryfc101 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

step 2 of the COI management process

There are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure which will be done once you make the disclosure on your User page. The second is what I call "peer 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 viola 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.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI 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, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes (this is also much better if you are a new editor and are trying to figure this place out!); 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 propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself.

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. (which I will say more about once we are done here - this is really the key stuff you need to know to get the article done).

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 the 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.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on any article or any article that you are working on for a client? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Once you do, I will walk you through the content and other policies that are relevant to you. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This makes solid sense, and why Wikipedia is so very relevant. I have disclosed the COI on my User Page and absolutely agree to the peer review. Thank you again for being so helpful.Barryfc101 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for talking with me. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia (WP) software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" 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 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. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tonix Pharmaceuticals (May 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Tonix Pharmaceuticals 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.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Barryfc101, 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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue

About the Tonix Logo here. There is a copyright problem. Each editor here is an individual human; there are no corporate accounts. That logo is property of Tonix and Tonix needs to give their permission to use it in WP or a fair use exemption needs to be claimed. The latter is usually easier and I suggest you fix the page with a fair use justification like was done for this one. If you don't, we'll have to delete the file. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit

OK, so I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works, and give you some advice about creating the article. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers encyclopedia articles that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. ) And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in Wikipedia space. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing)
WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article. I reckon this will be of special interest to you.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or the one for the draft article you are working on. Draft talk:Tonix Pharmaceuticals

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

SO... Anytime you want to create an article, here is what to do.

look for independent sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources.
Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there, and you can tell your client that it unlikely that the community will accept an article. (this is really important - many paid editors fail to manage their clients' expectations on this!)
Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For example, for companies, the relevant project is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines)
Create the article in draft space. (Note - I moved the draft you started in main space into draft space; that is where you are working now) Create the talk page, and disclose your COI there. (this is done for you already)
Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and provide a citation for each sentence as you go. This is really important!!! (I recommend you start over btw)
Make sure you write in neutral language.
When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article.
The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences or what the client wanted); there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
Submit your article for review via the WP:AFC process - again I can help there if you like. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tonix Pharmaceuticals (May 12)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Remember to actually insert the references into the article, don't just list them at the end.

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:Tonix Pharmaceuticals 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.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note

Barry, that decline came as no surprise. In my view you have not made a good faith effort to follow the guidance I provided you a couple of sections above. We are all volunteers here and the people who work in the draft review process are really, really busy. If you don't understand the guidance I gave you please ask, but please stop trying to submit drafts that have no chance at all of getting passed. Please. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tonix Pharmaceuticals (June 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona 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 on the notability of organizations and companies 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:

Given that the product is only just now on the market, this may be too soon. In any case, remove the section called "news articles" although you can use information from those in the WP article and therefore cite them. As they are, their function is promotional and is not allowed. Do not use any articles that are only mentions of the company or short quotes from company officers.

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:Tonix Pharmaceuticals 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.

LaMona (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]