User talk:Jcmeberhard

Deletion discussion about Amit Mahipal (physician)

Hello, Jcmeberhard,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Amit Mahipal (physician) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Mahipal (physician) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "Deletion discussion" from Barney the barney barney

Hello, Barney the barney barney.

Thank you for informing me about the discussion. The concerns you raise are valid. I'll be sure to contribute to the discussion within the next few days.

Best, Jcmeberhard (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. I've written a few medical biographies, and there are still big holes in our coverage (e.g., many (most) of the potential articles in List of presidents of the American Medical Association haven't been written yet), so new content is appreciated. But meanwhile, we need to respect the privacy of non-public living persons (per WP:BLP). And some editors tend to write about themselves (please don't write about yourself (trust me, it's for your own good; you can use linkedin instead)). If you can add general biographical references, please do. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thoughts and advice. I'm not a physician, but I study medical sociology and do qualitative research about medical writing and research. Amit Mahipal would be considered a public LP, in that he is well known in the medical community for his articles which have changed standard of care specifically regarding lymph node dissection. I did not do a very good job emphasizing this fact in the article though, and I can see how his notability would be in question. I'm working on gathering better sources to demonstrate the impact his work has had on daily medical practice, etc. I know a lot of doctors and med students, and I'm trying to only include information which that audience would find useful when they do encyclopedic searches on particular topics and people. However, this is of course a skill I will need to continue to hone. Meanwhile, it's good to know that Wikipedia needs more articles on medical notable persons. Maybe that's something I can tackle in the future. Right now, I'm really focusing on Oncology and EBM, since it syncs well with my own work right now, and is helping me organize my research.

Again, I really appreciate your criticism and feedback. It's helpful to know where I need to improve my writing for the good of the community. And, it was kind of you contacted me individually. Hopefully we can continue the discussion on the deletion page. 72.184.134.22 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Mokenge P. Malafa

Hello, Jcmeberhard,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Mokenge P. Malafa should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokenge P. Malafa .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that this was closed as "speedy keep". Unfortunately, there are apparently basic competence issues with the closer of the nomination. On behalf of this editor, apologies for any inconvenience or confusion that this may have caused. It has therefore been necessary to reopen the case, and this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokenge P. Malafa (2nd nomination). Your understanding of this matter is greatly appreciated. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bios

It seems you have, like many before you, misunderstood wp:Notability. That policy is rather misnamed. It does not matter if some topic is important. The test is whether it has been noted in wp:Reliable Sources. The work these docs have done may itself be more notable than they are. You might have a look for secondary papers citing their work to see if those discuss the people or just the work.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF does not require the academic to be the subject of biographical coverage in independent sources. Rather, an academic's notability can be determined by how influential that person is in their field, such as how often their published papers are cited by other researchers. Subject specific notability guidelines are just as valid as the general notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Cullen328, is there an appropriate way to provide evidence of a researcher's citation rate in the article itself, or is that the type of information that would be independently checked by editors, and discussed on the talk page? Jcmeberhard (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't information of interest to the general reader, but would be appropriate to mention on the talk page as an indication of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Hello, Jcmeberhard. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 21:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CoI, again

First, I want to thank you for being so willing to try and address it. In your note on my talk page you also make mention of a desire to make continued contributions to WP, and I think that speaks well of you. I know that I am somewhat aggressive when it comes to CoIs, for various reasons, but even setting aside my personal issues, I think you can imagine how polarizing it might be when, as part of a community like WP one is continually presented with clear and unambiguous advertising dressed up as an encyclopedia article, and posted by people who make no other contributions to the project, with no apparent interest in etiquette or best practices, etc. It can wear someone down, and cause them to respond in a more kneejerk fashion. I can see how someone unsure of how to contribute and without a clear sense of "local" culture or norms might inadvertently make some missteps at first that were interpreted this way.

At the same time, and at the risk of soapboxing a bit, the issue of subtle or not-so-subtle promotion within medicine is something that is widely recognized as a problem, particularly with regards to pharmaceuticals or devices. We here on WP just had our own little (hopefully final) discussion about an editor who was promoting their own services, for plastic surgery (labiaplasty in particular) consistently for quite some time, and I believe they have now finally been banned from editing the site entirely. (see this posting, there is additional material about a previous promotional physician there too, who went so far as to issue a press release about their Wikipedia page).

That's all really to just give you some background and context. As for advice, I think I can offer a few things:

Declare any conflicts of interest you have, clearly and unambiguously on your user page.
Avoid directly editing pages about that conflict of interest, or that might be perceived as related.
Realize (and ideally, accept) that your input may still be disregarded on topics where you have a CoI. (this is good advice for dealing with any community where things are done by WP:CONSENSUS, but is particularly salient for CoI editors)

There are any number of additional policies I could suggest, but really, everything you need to know policywise should be accessible within one to three link-levels of the WP:PILLARS page. There are also WP:HELPDESK and WP:TEAHOUSE where you can ask questions, and I would recommend those venues as well.

And apologies if I'm belaboring the point, but (assuming you have a CoI) if there were some topics where you do not have a CoI that you would be willing to assist with improving, I think that would go a long way towards demonstrating your good faith and desire to be an active and productive part of our community here. We can brainstorm further about particular areas if that is of interest.

If you've got more questions please feel free to ask them on my talk page. If you have specific concerns about the extent of a disclosure (again, assuming one is necessary) you can also reach me via email using the "email this user" link in the sidebar of my talk page. Another good person you might talk to about this sort of thing is Bluerasberry, who knows both WP and CoI issues a lot more thoroughly than I do. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your message on my talk page

wow, thanks for all that information (and feel free to ask someone for a "revdel" or revision deletion if you feel like you're disclosing too much about your identity there. I will remove your comment momentarily for that reason.)

I may have made a mistake here. mea culpa. If i were you, I would hesitate to write about the places I was employed, and speaking for myself probably about the institutions you are affiliated with, but I think an individual person you are unconnected to would be fine, with a few caveats.

Having put together some WP-editing activities in the fairly recent past, there are some things that I think are overlooked as possibilities here. (and actually, I am working on a presentation about this that maybe someday I will actually give to other medfolk)

Editing for e.g. punctuation, spelling, word use, etc is always, always, always necessary and can make a substantial difference.
Sometimes removal of content, either directly, or via rewording to clarify, can be as useful, if not moreso, than simple addition of content. Lots of WP-editing school projects make the mistake of thinking that "editing WP = adding content" and in my observations it rarely results in anything useful being added.
Even large, good articles need to have their references checked and statements verified to say what the reference says. Relatively few people do this.
It's good to remember that WP is targeted at a general, not a technical audience

I think some of your problems may have stemmed from this (IMHO) naive interpretation of what WP editing is. At base, it is a collaborative process, so asking what you can do to help others is frequently helpful. Particularly at WP:MED there are always tasks that need doing.

My first major editing project (still incomplete) was reviewing the "medical uses" section of Aspirin. I chose this article because it was high-traffic and high-importance, and I was attempting to both comply with the WP:MEDRS guidelines that urge the use of secondary sources. I was also attempting to, as much as possible, use papers that were available through PubMed Central, so that non-academics could review them as well (since Open Access is something of an advocacy hobbyhorse for me)

before and current. I did a great deal of reading on the topic as part of this, which was immensely valuable I think. And because aspirin is not exactny a "hot" or controversial topic in medicine, my changes have largely persisted in the months since. Furthermore, if the last month's statistics are any indication, ~120k pageviews per month means it has a pretty substantial platform, for good or ill; obviously WP articles are an attractive target for spammers of both subtle and not-so-subtle varieties for this reason, but this also is a really useful way to disseminate well-researched, solid medical information, as distinguished from new, novel, or un- or under-tested information.

I could go on at length here, as you can probably tell, and i know i haven't addressed some of your many points, but i think that will come in time. Again, feel free to ask me for help here, or just pop in your head at WT:MED, explain things a bit more (not at the detail level you've done here, certainly) and maybe apologize? and I'm sure we can get you plugged in somewhere. I'm happy to vouch for your good faith given what you've said here, and with the caveat that if your editing behavior doesn't bear this out, you can expect my opinion to change rather quickly. Sorry to end that on such a downer note, but the proof is always in the pudding.

a few final thoughts:

you will probably get a lot of mileage from mea culpas/apologies to the people you've had conflicts with, assuming they are genuine etc.
feel free to reply to this (should you desire to) here instead of my talk page.
It would probably not hurt you to be a little more diligent about making sure you're logged in. Given the history of misinterpreted intent here, leaving messages or edits as an IP editor when one also has an account can get one into trouble (if interpreted as sockpuppetry). And your ip address is also a disclosure that you don't necessarily need to make, especially if one's relevant affiliations are clear on the user page. seeing an IP edit from an related institution, say, can get things moving in a non-productive direction.

Anyway, if noone's said it explicitly before, welcome! I look forward to seeing your edits, I clearly think that we need more medical communications people involved in improving WP as long as it's used so widely by people. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Khaldoun Almhanna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Khaldoun Almhanna is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaldoun Almhanna until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mokenge P. Malafa MD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Mokenge P. Malafa MD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]