User talk:Gregorybarry

This is Gregorybarry's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: American Cochlear Implant Alliance (January 24)

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 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft reads promotionally.

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:American Cochlear Implant Alliance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
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) 03:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gregorybarry! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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) 03:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Gregorybarry. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your edits to date were on a run about the American Cochlear Implant Alliance (ACI). 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, Gregorybarry. 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). 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. 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 ACI, 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. After you respond (and you can just reply below), 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) 01:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

am pasting reply here, that was on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am an unpaid volunteer for The American Cochlear Implant Alliance.

I have reviewed the materials on Wikipedia about Cochlear Implants and believe that they are slanted towards organizations for the Deaf that support American Sign Language. The costs and effectiveness of this intervention are over and under-stated, respectively.

I retired in November 2016 and am interested in Wikipedia, having spent all of my career in IT-related fields (including work on an ARPA-funded effort in 1974, called The Cambridge Project.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorybarry (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! 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, 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 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. 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) 01:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing that you are a volunteer for ACI; this relationship does constitute a conflict of interest in my view - it appears that you came to represent them, to help them out. (COI is not just "paid", but is about relationships). ACI is an advocacy organization, sponsored by companies that sell CIs.

I'd be happy to discuss specific content, but let's get the "ground rule" stuff laid out first, if that is OK...

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Gregorybarry - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I am volunteer for The American Cochlear Implant Alliance and have a conflict of interest with regard to that organization and cochelar implants" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the ACI or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

I added a tag to Draft talk:American Cochlear Implant Alliance, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of 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 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 tag, and then submit the draft article for review (this is exactly what you did which is great. AfC is both for new users, and editors with a COI; you happen to be both); 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 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. 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.

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.

By the way, that page (User:Jytdog/How) has a section about writing a new article, which you might find helpful.

Best regards Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

am pasting reply here, that was on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The work of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance is funded from a variety of sources. The major funding source is the annual clinical research conference attended by cochlear implant clinicians, scientists, government officials, insurance representatives and nonprofit organizations. Clinicians and scientists who attend are from CI centers in universities, hospitals, schools, nonprofit and commercial centers. Other sources of funding are derived from membership dues, donations from individuals and companies, foundation grants, and NIH grants. The support from CI companies is one of many sources of funds for the organization. Most nonprofit organizations derive at some support from for-profit companies in the field they represent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorybarry (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change you suggested in my page and resubmitted the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorybarry (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your note. Please let me know if you will agree to follow the COI guideline. If you disagree that you have a conflict of interest, please let me know (the funding is really a side issue, with respect to whether you have a COI or not). Also, please reply here, to keep this conversation together. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. User:Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18.111.21.151 edited an draft that Gregorybarry created (and as drafts don't show up in search engines, it's extremely unlikely that the IP is someone else). That IP also added WP:REFSPAM to the article Cochlear implant which Dientboy would later re-add almost verbatim a month later, before going back to Gregorybarry's draft for another edit. These edits occurred in a close enough time frame that they have to be from the same person.

As you have a COI, it's obvious that the new account is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. I've gone with one week but the next block for sockpuppetry will be indefinite. While you are blocked, any edit you attempt to make on the site (except for this talk page) can be reverted as if it was vandalism. Your best bet of editing on this site is sticking to this account and deferring to users without a COI on matters of policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dientboy is now claiming that you recruited him. Is this the case? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gregorybarry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not sure who Dientboy is. I let people know what I was working on. I only have one account at Wikipedia and have followed all of the requested policies.

Decline reason:

It's either the case that you are lying or that Dientboy is lying, given that he claimed you recruited him and you claim you don't know who that is. Given the evidence available to me, I conclude your block is appropriate and should not be lifted. Yamla (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gregorybarry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know who Dientboy is. There were a number of people who I sent the article to. The name is not close to the names of any of the people I sent the article to.

Decline reason:

So, you admit you were recruiting people to edit your draft (see: WP:TAGTEAM). In that case, this block is appropriate, Vanjagenije (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That's no better! What on earth were you doing, violating your WP:COI in that manner?!? --Yamla (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gregorybarry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was the third rail of Wikipedia. I just thought that I would let people close to me know that I had done something on Wikipedia. I did not open any other account, in fact, I did not attempt to conceal my identity in any way, nor did I post anything from any other account. I think you are starting to get very snarky. I just don't understand why I have to defend myself, who has followed every suggestion from the editor reviewers to the best of my ability. You should explain why you have blocked me from editing. Your shorthand is not exactly easy to get. I'm sure that is why the community, while large, is becoming insular.

Accept reason:

Unblocking per extensive discussion below. Bilby (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re shorthand: if that was the first instance of COI on this page, I'd see your point. There's conversations above where users use the phrase "COI" and you clearly understood that it meant "conflict of interest." As has been explained, there's no functional difference between sockpuppetry and recruiting. It should be obvious that we have no means of telling the difference between you actively recruiting and people deciding to help you behind your back for no reason whatsoever. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidly, this is silly

I sent people the link to the submission. I have used my real name and have followed every suggestion from editors. This whole thing is almost surreal. I can't respond to people's comments. It feels like catch-22. Gregorybarry (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand why you were blocked? (I am not asking if you agree with the reasoning, but if you understand it) Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I did not solicit any editing to the page from others I sent the link to. I assumed that they would send me any changes that they thought I had overlooked. I didn't think that any of the people I sent the email to would have tried to edit any page. I wish I was so sophisticated in the Wiki world that I could do that. I am not. I did what I thought was a decent and truthful attempt to post an article on a topic that I am interested in. I find this whole episode to be insulting. I have made every attempt to work with you. I am not responsible for things that people I have sent a link to have done. Maybe this is just another sign of how things get out of whack.

I am not asking if you agree, but if you understand the reasoning. It has been explained several times. Do not waste your time or mine arguing. Please go back and review what people said. You either understand it or you don't. I am looking for a yes or no. If the answer is no I will explain. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, to the best of my ability, recruit anyone. I put together a possible article in my only user id for wikipedia sandbox. I promoted that article to a draft. I agreed that I had a COI, based on the fact that I was an unpaid volunteer for the American Cochlear Implant Alliance. I revealed that COI. I did not make any changes to any articles that dealt with CI's in that, or any others. I am really tired of dealing with this. I made a good faith attempt to post something. You have not even ruled on whether you it may be posted. At what point does the this get silly?

You are not interested in understanding why you were blocked, but instead are just arguing. There is nothing I can do to help you. I tried. ( I very much understand what happened and i also understand you are upset. But i cannot help you as long as you keep arguing. There might be a way forward if you understand why you were blocked, but we are not going to get there, apparently.) Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what. Thanks for your work. I sometimes forget that this whole endevour is based on volunteers. I have recently retired and was starting to think about this as my next gig. I won't be discouraged about the current issue. I am a long-time IT person (since 1974). I went to MIT in 1978 and have been into IT since.

(edit conflict) Hm, well that is close enough. But really not. Look, people make judgements based on what they can actually see. The reason why you were blocked, is because of what we can see. Please hear that. You should understand why you were blocked.

Background -- ideally everybody in Wikipedia would play it straight, and use one account, and never coordinate off-WP with people to play games to influence decisions here. But unforunately they don't. People create multiple accounts and use them, pretending like the accounts are different people. This is called "sockpuppetting" (or "socking" for short). People also coordinate off-WP and then act like they are independent of each other, here in Wikipedia. This is a form of socking called "meatpuppetting" or "meat" - we also call it GANG behavior (after the essay WP:GANG). These are ways that people actually try to game the system here.

On what kinds of topics do people do this? Generally anything people might have a financial interest in, or on which people might be very strong "fans" or "haters" of.

You have been editing about cochlear implants - something about which people are passionate, and something where there are strong financial interests.

When people do this socking or meatpuppeting thing, we sometimes catch them at it. Sometimes it is really obvious just from behavior that people are doing this; we also have some tools that we can use to investigate this. People who do this, lie about it. All the time.

That is part of the background - the general background.

Another part of the general background that you might not be aware of, is that the history of wikipedia is completely transparent. More on this below.

More specific to the CI topic, people from the company MED-EL have come to Wikipedia a lot in the past, and have added crappy promotional content and fake "references" promoting MEDEL. We would ask them to follow the COI guideline and they wouldn't, so we would block them or they would give up and go away. It got so bad that I actually emailed the CEO of the company and asked her to instruct her employees to stop abusing Wikipedia this way. She sent back a very nice reply, and it stopped for a while.

Do you get this? So there is a history of bad acting on this topic.

OK, so now into the weeds.

here are all your contributions

here is the history of Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance. If you look at that, you will see that an IP address is there -- 18.111.21.151

here are the contributions by that IP. Please notice that the account made only three edits over the course of about 10 minutes. One to the draft you were working on, then this edit to the Cochlear implant article. then another edit to the draft, all between 17:42 and 17:53 on 21 January 2018. (we will come back to this)

here is the recent history of edits to the Cochlear implant page.

You can see there the edit by the IP with edit note It is commonly accepted that CIs reduce or eliminate tinnitus. Added links to research papers and patient information re: CIs and tinnitus, removed uncited claim that CIs could cause tinnitus and you can see there the edit by Dientboy with the edit note Added tinnitus refs, removed unsupported claims

Here again is the edit by the IP; here is the edit by Dientboy. They are the same and they both contain a spam reference to the MEDEL website. So Dientboy = the IP and that person very likely works for/with MEDEL.

here are the contributions from Dientboy. That person made the one edit to the CI article, then came to my talk page. Again on a Saturday and then on Sunday (Feb 17 and Feb 18). Looking again at your contribs, this account took that weekend off from Wikipedia ... again.

The IP also worked on your draft. As I already noted in the COI section above, it is obvious that companies like MEDEL have a commercial interest in ACI doing its thing. Patient advocacy is a plank in the market access strategies of pharma and medical device companies. I believe you know this.

Going back to your contributions, look at your history. You edited on the 17th, 18th, and 19th, then were back on the 22nd (you took off saturday and sunday? But you said that you are retired.... hm.) The IP edited on the 21st.. Saturday. Your edit notes are also similar to those of the IP/Dientboy.

So that is what we see.

It looks like you are the same person as Dientboy and the IP.

There is a history of people editing and behaving badly on this topic.

People lie about doing this, all the time.

Your claim that you told "some people" about your draft, is really... thin. The kind of lies that people say.

None of us can know if Dientboy is somebody you sent the draft to and also just spammed the CI article, or if Dientboy is you.

That is the situation. There is the behavior we can see, that doesn't really make sense with what you are saying.

All of us are volunteers here, and taking time with people who come here to promote something ends up being an endless drain of time. So we block people who look like they are just screwing with us. That is really the bottom line. I and others have spent hours of our volunteer time cleaning up industrial waste dumped into WP by companies like MEDEL.

I have taken the time to explain all this to you on the chance that you are not lying. But I feel kind of like a chump doing that. But maybe not.

I suppose that we could partially resolve this more confidently with a CU. Checkuser needed.

Something you could do to help yourself is to say: a) that you understand that your edits look like those of the IP and Dientboy, and b) (sticking with your story) that if you coordinate again with anybody off-WP you will make sure that both you and the other person disclose that on Wikipedia so it is transparent that this is happening - that you are not actually independent editors. (You should email everybody you sent the draft to and make sure they know to disclose that you asked them to come, if they show up here).

That is the best i can do. Again I did all this on the chance that you got caught up in the IP/Dientboy acting badly and the very bad history of this topic in WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated Different UAs, different ISPs, 250 miles apart.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. That addresses the sock, not the meat. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

I was on vacation in Bedford Springs over the weekend. I appreciate how painful it must be to deal with these issues. I didn't make any edits as anyone other than myself and, frankly, have never pretended to be anyone but myself in this context. Just because I'm retired doesn't mean that I don't have other things going on in my life, as I am sure you will appreciate.

I'd like to do more, but will await whatever you folks decide.

Thanks for the insight. I understand why we got sideways.

Incidentally, if you look up Dientboy, the account was opened up nine months ago. My account was opened about a month ago. If Dientboy was a sock for me, I would have had to have shown more than a bit of prescience.

Gregorybarry (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much of a pain it is to do a CU. Don't bother if it is. If you see my post above, you will understand that I was not Dientboy. Whoever it was opened their account well before I ever thought about writing anything about CI's or the ACI Alliance or even posting articles on Wikipedia. I don't know if you get this, but hope you do.

Best and I appreciate what a pain it must be to clean up after people littering the site. Gregorybarry (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorybarry (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CU was done already.

You have not responded to my two recommendations above about what you might say that might get you unblocked, and instead are writing irrelevant things. The editing community relies on its members paying attention and learning... you are not going to have a productive time here, if you don't pick up on things. People are going to get tired of saying the same things to you several times and you will end up just stuck. Anyway I won't be replying further here. Good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the posts from Dientboy looked like it was me. I also continue to maintain that I made no post outside of the ones made from Gregorybarry. I have sent an email to all of the people I shared the post with to ensure that if they have any suggestions for changes that they go through me, not as editors. I am not writing irrelevant things. I don't know who Dientboy is, but I have used my name in all posts. I understand that you have had to deal with things from Med-El. I have no association with them. Dientboy may.

Gregorybarry (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Hi Gregorybarry. I've had a look at this, and I'm happy to unblock your account. But I do need to clarify a couple of things first:

We have no reason to believe that you were using an alternative account. The CU request confirmed that you are not the same person as Dientboy, so there are no worries on that front.
Wikipedia does discourage people with a conflict of interest from directly editing articles where they have a COI, but given your knowledge of the topic it would be great if you were still involved with it. I don;t see your COI as a major problem, given that you are a volunteer, but if you're happy to suggest changes on the talk page of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance I think it would be a win for everyone.
It is always great to get more views from people to help build Wikipedia, but as mentioned transparency makes things a bit easier and avoids misunderstandings. If you could encourage that it would be great.

Otherwise, it probably feels like you need to do a lot of running around to be unblocked, and that the rules here are a messy, but that's because the rules are messy and unblocking after a situation like yours does involve a lot of running around. :) Yet Wikipedia does work in the end, even if we sometimes have messy diversions, and people with your background are much needed. At any rate, if that works for you I'm happy to lift the block. - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have tried to be as transparent as possible. I appreciate this and understand how frustrating bad behavior is, particularly for people who volunteer their time. I am working at getting the nuances of Wikipedia down. I am not usually dense, but I will work at this.

Again, thanks.

Please let me know if I haven't gotten this right.

Gregorybarry (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Hopefully we’ll get to work on an article together at some point in the future. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies (March 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 Chenzw was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), 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.

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:Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
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.

Chenzw Talk 04:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: American Cochlear Implant Alliance (April 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 Shadowowl 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still reads like an advertisement.

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:American Cochlear Implant Alliance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

» Shadowowl | talk 18:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance

Hello, Gregorybarry. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Cochlear Implant Alliance moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, American Cochlear Implant Alliance, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. In addition you have a WP:COI or WP:UPE issue. Finally, the current ad simply reads like an ad for the association, so it needs to be re-written in a normal tone.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, and have addressed the COI/UPE issue, as well as the advertising aspect, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. You should not move the draft into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What type of citations are you talking about? I already indicated that I was an unpaid volunteer for ACI Alliance in my disclosures from 2018. I just looked at the American College of Surgeons wiki entry and don't see any significant difference. If anything, their entry is both out of date and more advertising. Most of their citations are from their own website or publications. Please clarify.