User talk:Mnoar

Welcome!

Hello, Mnoar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Stretta procedure, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

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! —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand further: since you have stated you are "one of the main authors of a great deal of the research in this procedure and technology", the problem is that you would be citing yourself in your edits. That heads down the slippery slope toward original research, even though you'd be citing published work. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fred: Thank you for your clarification. I did not realize that if you are an author in a field that you are automatically conflicted. That kind of keep all experts out of the knowledge cycle...curious. Just to be perfectly clear, original contributions to the page were made by others. I merely noted the vandalism of the page by Doc James, and restored the uncalled for deletions. If I have suggestions for additions in the future I will certainly submit them officially for review. But here is my question to you...what happens when someone with no experience or knowledge removes properly submitted information as in the case of Doc James? Does one just sit idly by and allow misinformation or removal of accurate information? I was under the impression that Wiki was there for educational purposes. So for me and others I have discussed this with, random removal of information without justification runs contrary to the Wiki goals. Can you help me out with understanding this? Mnoar (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Would appreciate you not editing articles were you have a financial conflict of interest. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James....thanks for pointing out the COI issue. I just want to say that one can be completely objective and still provide accurate information. The information that your removed for no apparent or justifiable reason that I restored were not written by me, so I did not violate the COI rules. In any case, since the rules are the rules I will not contribute to the page any longer.Mnoar (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was written by someone you appear to work with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James....Are you suggesting that because I know someone that they are conflicted? I know thousands of people, so based upon your arbitrary definition you feel that you have the right to exclude information that I had nothing to do with? You have vandalized the site once again with information taken out of context and applied it to cast a negative light on the technology. Again I ask for your motivation? Did you even ready the study to which you seem to want to promote? Are you friends with the authors? I believe you have an ethics issue. Does Wiki have a policy on bearing false witness?Mnoar (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on User talk:Doc James aren't even thinly veiled threats: they are unacceptable. If you disagreed with Doc James's edits you could have discussed them on the talk page, or you could have addressed them on Doc's talk page in a less... ad hominem matter. I'm also puzzled by your "I have grown weary of your deleting information", since you only made two edits to the article--I can't help but wonder if you haven't edited the article before, from a different account. And then there's the COI. Either way, it is clear that you are WP:NOTHERE, that is, not here to improve the encyclopedia on the encyclopedia's terms, and what you had to say to Doc James is unacceptable, even if Doc were completely wrong with their edits. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this format and you can check and see that I only recently joined a few days ago. I do not operate under any other name or account, and your suggestion that I have is unfounded and offensive. If I have violated your Wiki rules I apologize. I was made aware by an outside source of the page recently, and merely selected the review history option to see what had been done and by whom. I did in fact make all my comments via the TALK section, and never received and answer as to why Doc James was so consistent in his posting misinformation and taking information out of context. Your organization calls that vandalism according to your own documentation. His response to me was to attack and impune my character. My response was to question his ethics, which are still in question and remain unanswered. If this is not an ethical issue than it is one of competence and that raises quality control issues within the Wiki community and why when questioned the response is to exclude rather than explain. This is all about education isn't it? I only entered into this site to make sure that the truth was preserved. What is wrong or misplaced with questioning errors? What is misplaced is the ability of the person who is questioned, in your words "even if he was completely wrong in his edits", to not come clean and fix the issue and admit the wrongdoing or mistake vs. attacking someone who actually was trying to make sure the information in Wiki was correct. I understand that this is a circling of the wagons to protect Doc James, and that I have no power or standing. So be it. But who will protect the innocent when the wolf is in the hen(WIKI)house? With respect and understanding...Mnoar (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James's edits to that article were no more vandalism than yours. Your comments on Doc's talk page, that's an entirely different matter. It has nothing to do with your power or standing, or Doc's. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: My meager edits were factual, direct authors' quotes and in context. Doc's edits were and remain out of context and reflect that he never read the articles he is mentioning, which puts the procedure in a negative light. I am sorry to ask but have you read the information to see the actual facts? Vandalism by the Wiki definition speaks to the repetitive introduction of inaccurate information for no constructive purpose. Please review my posts and show me what was inaccurate or out of context. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. I have had a number of physicians and lay people review the history and they were also amazed and dismayed, as I was. You need to stop making this personal and focus on the published facts, otherwise Wiki as a resource is doomed. Finally, I am the just the last in a long line of contributors, both individuals and corporations, that have questioned his motives and accuracy. Questions make many feel uncomfortable. I have also privately shared my exact written comments to Doc with some colleagues both in the US, the EU and Canada, and I was told by everyone that I was spot on. Sorry again for all the trouble.Mnoar (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're no trouble (and I'm not much of a sir--"Drmies" will do just fine); I'm watching TV to see what happened to Peyton Manning. The problem, Mnoar, is the comments you made to Doc James. I have no opinion on your article edits, they are immaterial to me. But this talk about Doc's job and some review, and some talk about a bet you're willing to take, we cannot have that. You have to take the person out of the equation and talk shop. "You need to stop making this personal"--well, no: if personal attacks are made, admins may have to intervene, and this got way personal, to the point of you apparently threatening someone's livelihood. In addition, if you're indeed new, I have to ask where this extensive knowledge of Doc's supposed ongoing intransigence comes from--but I really don't need to hear an answer. If you want to make a successful unblock request (directions are above), you'll have to address what you did, not what Doc did. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]