Jsvaidya

Effect of Molecular Biology on human health

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Effect of Molecular Biology on human health, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NOTE (India)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on NOTE (India) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Coolug (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mushtifund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marathi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Alert

An issue involving you has been raised at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. You may want to comment. DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

References

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. 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. 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Jsvaidya. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. My attention was called to your editing by the COIN notice above (which took us a long time to get to) and your edit warring at Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy.

This note is kind of long, but please take the time to read all of this and to reflect on it.

Your username clearly reflects your real world name, and your edits to date are all about your family and your work.

• Your first edit] added promotional content about [[Sharad Vaidya|your dad] (per this) and you later created an article about him that was very promotional (reflecting a son's love and respect, for sure, but really bad Wikipedia content). Both things violate the COI guidelines which says clearly that editors shouldn't create articles about themselves, their family, and their friends.
• You have extensively edited the Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy article over the past few years, often citing your own website papers as in this edit for example. People have objected to those edits, and instead of following the guidance provided at WP:SELFCITE, you have edit warred the content back in. This is disruptive, and is driven by your COI.
• You have also edited the Radiation therapy article (contribs to it) adding reference to your own work, like here and the Intraoperative radiation therapy article over the past couple of years (your contribs to it), again citing yourself and promoting your own work, as in this dif.

We love experts in Wikipedia, and we have many medical professional who contribute well, but you are using Wikipedia to promote your work and your family, and this is not OK. Please see WP:EXPERT and Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) for a couple of distillations of the community's experience with medical experts.

I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Jsvaidya. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

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. 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).

There are two requests for you below, and I have bolded each of them.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. As I mentioned above, you have sort of disclosed, but not fully, and you have not acknowledged any conflicts of interest in Wikipedia - not with regard to editing about yourself, but really importantly not even about your relationship with Zeiss, which you at least disclose in your papers, as you did here. You need to make these disclosures and acknowledge the two levels of conflict of interest.

Would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Jsvaidya) Just something simple like: "I have worked on clinical trials for Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy and have a relationship with Carl Zeiss which makes the equipment used in that procedure, and I have a conflict of interest in Wikipedia with regard to that topic and related ones. I also have a conflict of interest with regard to Sharad Vaidya and National Organisation for Tobacco Eradication (India)." If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

Once you have explicitly disclosed your COI, I will add the relevant tag to the talk pages of the relevant articles, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page and I add the tags, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voila there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself.

By following those peer review processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on any article or any article where your COI is relevant?'

Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

FROM jsvaidya - Don't know how you get this message to you

Thanks for the clarification. I did not realise that this can be seen as 'promotional'. I did not also mean to hide any potential COI, as I edit under my own name. I just happen to be a person who is able to edit wikipedia (clearly not savvy or knowledgeable about its systems an norms hence ended up in this silly 'war') AND very busy doing the clinical and research work. I like your idea of submitting it for peer review and then if acceptable, 'publishing' it via a different editor. I did not know that this system existed for Wikipedia - I am very used this system for published research papers!

So please if someone can go through the text that I have last added and re-instate it if it is factually correct, it would enable the world to access the information about TARGIT easily and in one place, which has been the intention. I have removed references to my own webpage.

I am puzzled though how much COI remains hidden if people want to hide it, which I suppose must be easy because identity of each person is unchecked and I could have easily picked a username that is does not include my surname!

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsvaidya (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, What else do I need to do? - do you have time to go through the text/get it 'peer reviewed' and published? Jsvaidya

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsvaidya (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply! I have worked with doctors who do research and I understand how busy you are, so I appreciate you taking the time to write here, and your ongoing work intended to improve Wikipedia.

Thanks too for making the disclosure on your user page.

Yes, managing conflicts of interest in Wikipedia is challenging. I have a bunch of stuff I have written about it on my userpage, if you want to read that. People's edits tend to give them away, which leads to discussions like the one I am having with you. Most people (like you) were just unaware of these issues in Wikipedia and are happy to comply.

Finally, thanks for agreeing to follow the peer review process. I will copy your recent post onto the Talk page.

Please know that for any content about health in Wikipedia, the guide for sourcing is here: WP:MEDRS. That is a big long thing, but what it boils down to, is that we need reviews from the biomedical literature or statements by major health authorities (like the NIH or NHS). So a bunch of your proposed content won't fly, but some will.

Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Pa080070 Aji Ajoba ajoba.jpg

The page File:Pa080070 Aji Ajoba ajoba.jpg has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image was an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links were updated.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)