User talk:EspressoHealth

This is EspressoHealth's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

AfC notification: Draft:ABI-009 has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:ABI-009. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @GermanJoe, @Richard Keatinge, @SweetCanadianMullet, Other Wiki editors,

Wonder if I submitted to the wrong place? As a user, I have found valuable information on Wikipedia on experimental therapeutics that are still in clinical development phase, ie, in human clinical trials and not yet approved, such as ozanimod. Thus, I mirrored the flow of their content to provide objective and factual information on ABI-009 (nab-rapamycin) for patients, medical audience, anyone googling, looking for information on it. Perhaps your preference is to publish on approved therapeutics? Please let me know and I will withdraw the page or improve it per your advise. EspressoHealth (talk) @espressohealth EspressoHealth (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Conflict of Interest(Response to ChemNerd)

Hello ChemNerd, I am not sure how to respond to this, I am only helping the researcher (AADI Bioscience) publish this page. It is a study and information that the company would like to utilize Wikipedia for. Simple.

Please let me know if I can provide more info, and would rather do that in an email or via a call if that's possible?

Many thanks!

YossiEspressoHealth (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "helping" AADI Bioscience. If you are being paid by them, you need to disclose this fact. Please see WP:PAID for details. But regardless, if you are writing this article for AADI Bioscience because "the company would like to utilize Wikipedia", then there is a clear conflict of interest. As the conflict of interest policy says in its summary, "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." ChemNerd (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Conflict of Interest(Response to ChemNerd)

Dear ChemNerd,

I am an AADi employee and I am the author of the article about ABI-009, which is a therapeutic in clinical development. All edits Yossi does is per our request as he is our tech support. This is meant as an informational page on this therapeutic that is being studied in clinical studies and is not marketed, in an essence no different from other pages on wikipedia about therapeutics in clinical development (eg, ozanimod).

Please advise what and where do I need to disclose my authorship as an AADi employee and if any other disclosure I need to provide. We want to ensure all your requirements are met.

Anita N. Schmid, PhDEspressoHealth (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Also, as a minor point, Wikipedia doesn't permit user accounts to be shared by multiple individuals (which seems to be the case here with multiple people signing comments). I hope this helps. ChemNerd (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ChemNerd I am not tech savvy and have to admit I am lost on that page, I am a scientist/content contributor. Could I get help with my above disclosure? Also happy to discuss the subject's intention, which is no different than the 100+ pharmaceutical investigational or non-investigational therapeutic that is on WikiPedia currently, as an example, see ozanimod, 5-FU, gemcitabine, and many more. Love the platform that WikiPedia offers, which is an all-in-one page information source for anyone - assuming someone very knowledgeable about those agents write the articles too. My proposed content only uses publicly available and referenced information. Would welcome any suggestion to edit, remove, add content to make sure this page is done right. Thanks again, Anita

Your submission at Articles for creation: ABI-009 (February 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SweetCanadianMullet was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ABI-009 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:ABI-009, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EspressoHealth! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

This account has been used by at least two people, "Anita" and "Yossi"; that is not permitted here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EspressoHealth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Admin/Orange Mike. We asked to delete this page because we found the guidelines to not match what we did or intended. Hope this help clarifies? Thank you for your help. EspressoHealth (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EspressoHealth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Kevin and OrangeMike - PLEASE remove this page, and better yet DELET the account. We understand that the forum is not for spam etc - we have created a content that was intended to educate but was missing guidelines and understand it - so PLEASE delete the page or/and the Account. If you can tell me how to do so - please do. EspressoHealth (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, not an unblock request. User talk pages like this are not typically deleted. Accounts cannot be deleted; if you do not wish to be unblocked, simply stop using your account. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.