User talk:Deli nk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Feel free to drop me a note on this page. (Old discussions can be found here: Archive)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)[edit]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest and Self Promotion on Pterygium (conjunctiva)[edit]

Hi Deli nk

I have been accused of adding promotional material onto Wikipedia Pterygium (conjunctiva). I would like to respond to this, commencing with the following quote from the NPOV policy page.

“The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias."

I am a qualified ophthalmologist and have been researching Pterygium for 25 years, and as a result have published over 100 peer reviewed journal articles and research papers based on solid and scientific research methodology. The ophthalmology community consider me as a subject matter expert, with journal editors regularly requesting my revision of any research into pterygium. As a result of my cumulative research on pterygium, I have been awarded the highest degree that the University of Queensland awards, a Doctor of Science in 2015.

As a respected member of the global ophthalmology community, I supported all my edits on Wikipedia with research which is published in books or journals. In the instances I have referenced my own research, again, to remind you it is scientific, therefore neutral, and published research, it is because it is the only research available on the topic. All of these referenced works are in peer reviewed journals and in fact the principal article which describes the world’s largest prospective series of pterygium surgeries was the lead article in the highest ranked clinical ophthalmic journal in the world, “Ophthalmology”.

My goal with editing the Pterygium page was to remove the dangerous content, ie claiming that radiation was a form of treatment, when in fact it is dangerous to the patient’s vision and has long been banned as a method of treatment. And to update the content to reflect current standards and procedures. Yes, I have referenced my own research, but it is, as stated in the NPOV, ‘properly sourced bias.’

My apologies for the unintended result of appearing promotional. And I request any advice for avoiding that in the future.

L Hirst Lawrence Hirst (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think I will defer to the ongoing conversation at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Pterygium_.28conjunctiva.29_2 and let the more experienced editors handle it from here. Regards, Deli nk (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Vegan Alternatives[edit]

I removed your A7 tag, because in my opinion having won acclaim from major "in-universe" vegan groups (an award from PETA, endorsement and promotion from Vegan Outreach qualifies as a WP:CCS, as both plausibly true and plausibly leading to enough coverage (albeit in specialist sources) to satisfy GNG.

But after some wikification, cleanup, and Googling, I've grown convinced that GNG is not in fact met here, so I've PRODded the page and notified the page creator. So it's not a big deal, but I wanted to let you know why I removed your tag. Happy patrolling! FourViolas (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I don't object. Thanks for informing me. Deli nk (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
FYI @FourViolas: The prod was removed without explanation by the article's creator, but I still don't think it is notable enough, so I have now listed it at AFD. Deli nk (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I did not add any external links, I just rightly categorised it. Kindly spend some time on the article before you blindly remove it and place a tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul attick (talkcontribs) 08:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't catch that you moved it rather than added it. However, you are incorrect to suggest that I removed it blindly. I don't think it is an acceptable external link. Deli nk (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry a bit upset Paul attick (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

DrSun message[edit]

Hi Deli nk, got your input on my changes related to the stock cube page. I am not affiliated in any way with I found them by searching sites describing the recipe and process of stock cubes. I looked at the wikipedia guidelines and I am confused why a generic recipe of stock cubes is not appropriate. People are eager to know what is in their food and a general understanding of a product recipe is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSun (talkcontribs) 17:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It may be worth adding a discussion of typical ingredients, but I don't think a recipe for a specific product is appropriate - recipes are specifically mentioned at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as something to avoided in Wikipedia articles. If you disagree with that policy, you are welcome to discuss a potential change to the policy at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Deli nk (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)