User talk:ScienceForeverLife

Welcome!

Hello, ScienceForeverLife, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Everything I edit on Wikipedia comes from a verified news article. If you have problems with what I say, take it up with the original sources.

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. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

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 Gu or his company, 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, and if you are editing for pay or the expectation of being paid, you must disclose that. After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant 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) 00:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this dif, you removed half of my post, and did not reply to the question above. Would you please disclose if you have some connection with Gu? Also, please sign your posts. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pasting comment here, that was left on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relationship with Dr. Gu. He is one of 7 Twitter lawsuit plaintiffs who just won against Trump, therefore piquing my interest in him. He is a verified public figure so anything I write about him on his Wikipedia page is not promotional but taken directly from a news article. If you have issues with that, read the original article and take it up with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceForeverLife (talk • contribs) 01:06, 29 May 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 (see WP:THREAD) - 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 to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

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) 01:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your reply. I realize that you don't understand that we don't use honorifics like "Dr", and that WP is not a newspaper and we don't provide "color quotes" like newspapers do...and your edits about the company were not supported by the source, but were "selling" the company. Your edits have not been encyclopedic and have been promotional. I do appreciate you adding content about the outcome of the court case; that was helpful.

Wikipedia is not a "wild west" - there are policies and guidelines that govern how we edit. Please do review the welcome message above and the links there, which explain the policies and guidelines. You can have a look at User:Jytdog/How, which I wrote to try orient people who are in a hurry.

We can perhaps revisit the conflict of interest issues later. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Eugene Gu 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you change it back to "physician" again you are very likely to be blocked.Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's your beef with my trying to correct the inaccuracies on a wikipedia page. It is absurd for someone to be a physician-in-training if they are not training anymore. ScienceForeverLife (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceForeverLife. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. firefly ( t · c ) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]