User talk:TGNPro

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

March 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen (TGNPro) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a professional group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

  1. It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
  2. Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, Please have a look at the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:COI. The article in question is Trigeminal neuralgia. Thank you. Widefox (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not represent any professional group and your claim that I do is entirely opinion based. The name I chose, TGNPRO , (hereafter "TNG") is an acronym for Trigeminal Neuralgia Professional. Therefore, Wildfox, I am not a member of any organization. I work independently and write independently on the topic of Trigeminal Neuralgia (hereafter "TN"). I have contributed to the TN discussion to better the experience of those visiting, with the hope of obtaining clear and precise information on the aforementioned affliction. In general the TN article is well written, but because there are various inconsistencies throughout the TN page, and no one has taken the time to correct these errors, I decided to participate, as have hundreds before me. These inconsistencies include, but are not limited to, grammatical and sentence structure errors, which lead the reader to incorrect conclusions.

In addition, there is no "Social Impact" section on the TN page or the Atypical Trigeminal Neuralgia (hereafter "ATN") page. This disease or injury, depending on how one is originally afflicted with TN or ATN, has major social ramifications, which are mentioned, but are not cohesively organized, as they once had been for several years. Wildfox, I'm sure you understand that the quality of articles, tend to change over the years. Sometimes these changes lead to greater insight, and sometimes they do not.

The majority of what I've written, proverbially, is neither here or there. But, I will repeat, that the only person I represent, is myself. If my name were TGNGroup or TGNLeader, I would have an easier time, understanding where you are personally coming from. I have read Wikipedia's TOS (guidelines) as they pertain name selection and usage. My chosen name fits within the written guidelines, rules, and regulations of I see no reason to change my name, as it reflects who I am, and what I do, professionally, hence the name "PRO" portion of my name. Because, I work with TN and ATN patients, does not imply that that I am incapable of presenting a neutral point of view.

There is no conflict of interest, whatsoever.

Now that I have taken the time to draft this explanation of my "handle" and to document my intentions, insofar as contributing to the TN and ATN pages, I hope I have put this matter to rest.

Respectfully, TGNPRO


Hello TGNPro,

I noticed your edit to Trigeminal neuralgia was reverted, and saw the message above, and wanted to leave a quick note.

  • While I don't think your username indicates a group of people, it might indicate you have some strong feelings about the subject. Please do take a look at our neutral point of view guideline, it has some good advice.
  • In my opinion, a name change is probably not required, but it might be a good idea; at least one person interpreted it as a claim of being a medical professional in the field. But I'll leave that up to you. I don't think our conflict of interest guidelines necessarily apply, but to be honest that guideline has some good advice in it too, and might be worth your time.
  • Your edit did have some problems, which I assume is why it was reverted. New material that anyone disagrees with must be sourced to reliable sources. Even if there are reliable sources, someone might still disagree about the addition, and then it can be hammered out on the article's talk page: Talk:Trigeminal neuralgia. But step one would be to look at WP:RS and see if you can find a source that meets those requirements.
  • I'm leaving our standard welcome template below; the links there might prove useful. Let me know if you have any questions.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Floquenbeam,

I have no stronger feelings on the subject than anyone else, who is interested in a particular topic. Those who are interested in aviation, for example, surely have strong feelings about what keeps an airplane flying in the air, and if one were to call themselves "PilotPerson, PilotPro, or PilotWoman," I see no reason to assume that they would have strong feeling on the subject, or were necessarily non-neutral on the subject of flying. I would only assume they had interest or knowledge, that they wished to contribute to the base article. After all, there are many schools of thought, pertaining to most subjects.

Medicine is often a highly controversial field, when it comes to the treatment of certain diseases, especially rare diseases or afflictions such as Trigeminal Neuralgia. Though, that statement can be said about many topics on I have closely examined the "Neutral Point of View Guideline(s)" and my contribution fit within the written guidelines, without issue. My statements served only to clarify claims that were already alluded to in the article. I would enjoy contributing to the group effort of making an accurate source of information, for those seeking advice about this particular topic.

The reason for the reversion of my edit, is beyond me. There was no information contained in my edit, that required citation. As previously stated, It simply clarified what was originally written. Using subjective, and uncommon, adjectives such as "dread," do not belong in medical based articles. Such words complicate sentences and cause confusion amongst readers. A simplified word choice would be "fear," as the goal of of the sentence was not to explain a complicated medical phenomenon, but to explain a very simple phenomenon: the difficulty of shaving.

In addition, I added information that indicated what this "dread" or "fear" may lead to. Since there were citations to the precise topic I was furthering, I saw no need to add additional citations, as I was no adding new information to the article (webpage), but merely clarifying the original author's point of view, which was, and now is, again, due to the reversion, incomplete. Therefore, once again, it is beyond me why a high-quality paragraph would be removed from the page. But that is for the individual who removed the article to figure out.

Thank you for your comments. For now, I will leave my name as is. Should more than 1-individual take issue, out of the thousands who visit, and contribute, I'll consider that a sign that a change is in order.



Hello, TGNPro, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hello, I want to add that the message I added above didn't fit my intentions, so I have modified it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me as well. Widefox (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)