User talk:Gallium31

License tagging for Image:GaM.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:GaM.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:GaM.pdf

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:GaM.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 12:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:GaMaltolate.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GaMaltolate.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Leyo 14:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 17:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Trigeminal neuralgia

Thank you for your edits on TN. However, the source you used [1] is a case report, and medical content on wikipedia needs secondary or tertiary sources (see WP:MEDRS for more info). Thanks, Lesion (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Yobol (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Gallium31. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Gallium maltolate, 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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Yobol (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Your recent editing history at Trigeminal neuralgia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yobol (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yobol, I appreciate your enthusiasm for editing, but you are deleting valuable, peer-reviewed information. Nothing in science or medicine is ever definitively proven; progress is made by evidence being presented, discussed, and tested. Deleting information destroys that process. The items you deleted made no medical or scientific claims, they just reported published data from reputable sources that have been cited in secondary and tertiary sources. Please don't deprive people of potentially useful information.Gallium31 (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made 4 reverts here within 24 h thus are blocked from editing [2]. When you are allowed to edit again please follow the advice you have been given Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 h for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to re add the same content that got you blocked without first joining the discussion on the talk page is not cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not as familiar with Wikipedia editing as you are (though I do work as a professional editor), so please forgive me if I inadvertently did not follow proper protocols. In this case, I did not add back the same content. I amended the content as was requested of me, by explicitly stating that case reports were used and by citing a tertiary source. These changes were made to bring the material into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. I was not aware of how to have a discussion like this--but I'm learning!

You need to discuss matters here [3] to get consensus first. If you agree to do so I an unblock you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the major revision made my Yobol. I have made some small changes to make the content more accurate and precise.Gallium31 (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case reports do not prove anything. They can only generate a hypothesis. Thus "has relieved neuropathic pain" is misleading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in science "proves" anything; evidence is collected that supports or conflicts with hypotheses. In particular cases, something certainly can be observed to relieve neuropathic pain: case reports can support (or conflict with) a hypothesis, not necessarily generate a hypothesis. A controlled clinical trial is just a collection of selected case studies. A recent reference (peer-reviewed conference abstract and poster) presents a pilot clinical trial showing efficacy of topical gallium maltolate in 14 patients with trigeminal neuralgia, but you or others apparently won't allow it to be cited here. Please remember that gallium maltolate is a chemical compound, not an approved drug, and it's important that scientific information not be censored. Thank you for your consideration.Gallium31 (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI with Gallium maltolate

One can be sure of your good intentions, but can you clarify that you have no conflict of interest (see WP:COI) on Gallium maltolate. COI might include self-citation, financial involvement with firms marketing the compound, etc. Just clearing the air is healthy. You might say something about your interests on your user page, which is presently blank. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of many researchers who are studying the possible therapeutic properties of gallium, and I am an author on some of the cited papers. I am not associated with any company developing gallium maltolate for the treatment of cancer, though I am associated with a company that is involved with topical formulations of gallium maltolate. The phrase in question cannot, however, be a COI matter for anyone, as it refers to a published, peer-reviewed paper, by multiple authors in multiple institutions, in a respected scientific journal. All such papers must meet the COI requirements of the journal and must publicly disclose any potential COI issues. Thank you for your patience; I am not so familiar with Wikipedia, and did not know that I have a "user page"; I'll look into it! Cheers, Gallium31 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also publish articles. Your comments are frankly not reassuring. My policy - avoid specific areas where one publish so that one minimize the possibility of COI. That policy ensures that editors are here for the right reasons - to educate, vs the usual reason, to elevate one's visibility. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your opinion, but I think that we must be careful not to become so cautious that valuable information is lost to the public. The most informed people on a subject will, of course, also tend to be the ones most likely to have published and been otherwise involved with the subject. I think it would be a mistake to exclude them (including you!) from contributing to Wikipedia in the very fields for which they are most qualified to contribute. In the world of science, citing one's own publications should probably be minimized as a matter of modesty, but it is not a COI matter. Also, I think it best if editors are presumed innocent rather than presumed guilty. Posting on Wikipedia to elevate my visibility never occurred to me; if I wanted a lot of visibility (and money), I wouldn't be involved in fairly obscure scientific research. Thank you and best wishes, Gallium31 (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard all that before. I was fortunate to learn enough chemistry so that I do not need to write about my research specialties. Check out my hall of fame User:Smokefoot#Editors, often infrequent, who only cite one researcher: Hall of CoI.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]