User talk:Doc James/Archive 118

[1], see fifth paragraph of [2]. Does your revert mean the addition is worded wrong or is it not allowed in the article? I will figure out how to use reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candide124 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A couple of things. (1) I have no idea what this means "Around 1886, Nicholas Senn successfully tested the diagnosis of gastrointestinal perforation by inflation with hydrogen gas." (2) Better to use modern sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to annoy you, but is the part written about gastrointestinal perforation in Nicolas_Senn#Career also invalid considering it uses the same citation? --Candide124 (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Now worries. I do not know what it means on that page either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,

Thank you for signup our study. I have made some improvement in our system, and am preparing the second batch of recommendations lately. Haven't heard anything from you about the first batch yet. I wonder if you'd like to continue our study, and receive the next batch? Please let me know. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I won't presume to speak for James, but when I looked over the first batch, it looked to me like about half of them were either already members of the project or else very familiar with it; the other half had only made one or two marginal edits -- one had made a single edit that was actually vandalism. So there really wasn't anything that could be done with the first batch. I think many of us are interested in seeing how this develops, though, and encourage you to keep working on it. (I speak only for myself.) Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to keep following development :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you review Special:Contributions/Rabiuldr? They look fishy to me, but I lack the knowledge to assess. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Appears to be adding their own papers across a bunch of articles / spamming. Warning / education left. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Is avatar therapy legit? As in Second Life... this is new to me. Should something be said of fringeyness at Online Therapy Institute? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bri that article really sucks like most paid editing. Most of the sources are dead. Pubmed has nothing. Google news has little aswell. Nominated for deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, can you please undelete this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Gallardo_%28business_person%29

It was one of the pages deleted massively but this one is legitimate.

Kindest regards

Albert

Created by a blocked user who is in breach of our TOU, so no.

As you have no history here and your email appears to be new wondering what your relationship is to the prior accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,

We made some changes and improvement in our system, and generated a second batch of recommendations for WPVG. We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system.

Bobo.03 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The deleted information pertaining an effect of TNF-alpha on the cell cycle is of importance and is not outdated. For example e.g. it was recently reported that that the TNF-induced cell cycle effects play a role in Alzheimer's disease.^[1] Several other reports also confirm the involvement of cell cycle and TNF-alpha effects.Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz This is a small primary source[3]. The request is to use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The organization of "shoulder problem" vs "subacromial bursitis" vs "impingement syndrome" as 3 separate pages is disorganized and redundant. Is there a better way these can be reorganized? If you come up with an appropriate solution I can start fleshing them out. IIIBALESIII 01:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Shoulder problem is a broad category that contains a bunch of stuff from rotator cuff injuries to AC joint dislocation, etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Mitesh93 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Will email you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the adviced - got it. I can see other places in the article where medical teminology has been used instead of easy to understand language, so I'll have a go at clearing them up. Thanks again. 86.169.78.24 (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have created a sea of red ink from harv citation errors I will see if i can repair them all --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Michael Goodyear not seeing the issues you mention? Did you seem my comment here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Its a function of your editing preferences - it warns you that a lot of text citations have become disconnected from their targets, die to recent edits. It looks like this - Harv error: link from #CITEREFCTCAE2010 doesn't point to any citation. I did see your comment and they are - but its not a hard and fast rule, bibliographies can contain useful resources as tools. - Michael Goodyear (talk)

Are you saying that the links to Clinicaltrials.org were being used as references?

Which ref are you saying is not working? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Amongst others, yes, anyway I have fixed all the broken citations. Thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

What I removed is still not present? So not sure how you fixed it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Cannabis is not de facto legal in Netherlands. It is tolerated for the sake of not creating a black market and as a means of harm reduction. Possession and public use are still finable misdemeanors, but rarely enforced unless in possession of more than 5 grams. All forms of cannabis are a controlled substance, but hash oil is considered a Class A drug and carries enhanced penalties. Cultivation of large numbers of plants is a prosecutable offense.

Source: the Dutch themselves, including a local police officer.

Thank you, Mleonard85032

Okay let me check the source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, sir!. Mleonard85032 (talk . contribs) 21:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear James, Thank you for your comments. I reverted your edit as rhinovirus infection is the major cause of asthma exacerbations (see BMJ ref) and therefore important to understand asthmatic airway exacerbations. Please let me know the reasoning behind your edit.

Kindest regards, Chocofanten(an MD as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChocoFanten (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. We tend to base our content on high quality secondary sources not primary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please Doc, can you review the page deleted making reference to Luis Gallardo (business person). Can you please send to me the latest draft so I plan to work on it.

Thanks very much

Albert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Remedy (talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Albert Remedy You will need to email me. There was issues as you are aware. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James and thanks for feed-back! Sent you a mail with some comments and questions.....

Figgep (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please consider commenting at Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard#Simplification_Proposal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I see the edit you made following mine.

I don't think it's fair to group copper-silver ionization with UV for Legionella.

There are several valid studies referenced on the copper-silver ionization page so the bullet as I wrote it should stand on it's own:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper-silver_ionization (see references)

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelassad (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The ref in question does[4] so we should aswell. Hvae begun updating the other article you mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Atherosclerosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hatchet job? Jim1138 (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 to what do you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

These. Jim1138 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yah :-( Not ideal but the content was not particularly good before either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Doc James,

I was so saddened when a client called to let me know he had clicked on my wikipedia page only to find that it didn't exist anymore. It was created for me in 2012 and there is no reason why it should have been deleted. Did it perhaps fall into a mass deletion that other people are referencing? I'm a established Broadway actress, Billboard artist and would so appreciate you restoring it and/or explaining in details why you deleted it and how it can be fixed so it is not deleted again. Thank you for your help in restoring it as soon as possible, as it is a cornerstone in my career visibility. Thanks Leslie Becker

Page deleted Leslie Becker (actor)

The account that created the article was a banned editor[5] and did not disclose that they were getting paid. Therefore the article was deleted. Apologies Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there is some ORES work going on with pages with {{Undisclosed paid}} on it? Is there any description of that work on-wiki, or could you give a brief explanation? Its something I'd like to explain to those who are active at NPP at some point, because I think it could really help a lot of the work we do there in the future. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It is something that is being discussed. But I do not think there is active programming on this yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiffyClyroFan13 -- PBS (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades ^Godric 10:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear James,as [talked earlier] I would like to extend my help in developing offline Hindi app.Feel free to contact anytime.Swapnil.Karambelkar (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Great User:Swapnil.Karambelkar. Everything in red here is in need of translation.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I really would like to add some basic information to various cancer pages. Information that I think provide good complements regarding both information and useful links to pick up on knowledge on general gene expression patterns in different types of cancer. I like the way the "colorectal cancer" page turned out and not so found of the "pancreatic cancer" page. Some depends on differences in the page structure, if there is a "Pathogenesis" heading or other headings that fit for this description. What I think is of interest is to provide a rough number of how many of our genes are expressed in a cancer and more importantly how many appear with a degree of being specifically expressed for that cancer type + information regarding genes where expression is associated with outcome, i.e. prognostic genes and give a few examples of such. Would appreciate your comments so that we get a good end result! Figgep (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Figgep not exactly sure what you are proposing? Nearly all articles have pathophysiology sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, guess I think info could be split up in both a sentence or two under a pathogenesis/pathophysiology heading and something under a "prognosis" heading. I will test on a few pages and see what you think. Figgep (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure that would work I imagine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Doc James — I recently had an article approved (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Dr._Kaveh_Alizadeh&action=edit&redlink=1), though it was later moved by you and then deleted by a different editor. You asked that I read WP: PAID, which I did, and thank you for that. Though the doctor is a client I have done work for on a per-project basis, I received no compensation for this wikipedia article. That said, I understand the desire for utmost transparency and would like to make the appropriate notices—though I do not know how to find the article now to do so. Is that something you can help with? I appreciate your attention, and thanks! Alikouros (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The article was very very promotional. We require non promotional content.

You stat "I work in the medical marketing field, and will disclose any relationships I have with subjects of articles I create or edit." yet they are a client and you did not consider this to be sufficient to require disclosure? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, again thank you for your response. I added the line you referenced to my bio page after reading the guidelines you directed me to read. I now plan to make specific references as necessary on both my page and the talk pages of articles I create/edit. As for this particular article being too promotional, I was aiming to establish notability via high-profile surgeries and media appearances, awards, etc.--as I found on numerous other plastic surgeons' live Wikipedia pages, many that have blatantly non-relevant and/or dead links. I just now figured out where this page lived back in the draft space, so I will make some adjustments and re-submit. Thanks again! Alikouros (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, Doc James, I have included disclaimers on both my talk page and the article's talk page, removed content I believe you would have considered to be "too promotional," and ensured all references support the related content. What do I do next to square this article with you? Thanks for your attention. Alikouros (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have reason to think this may have been a paid article. Could you have a quick look to see if anything looks amiss? I'm unfamiliar with mydr.com.au which is repeatedly cited. Note unusual creation by very new account [7] ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yah this source is poor http://www.mydr.com.au/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Doc, you didn't just trim some unrefed stuff, you also placed a COI tag on the article. On top of this, the COI tag requires you to begin a discussion on the article's talk page as to what the specific COI problems are— the tag's documentation makes pretty clear that unless you do this, the tag may be removed by anyone. I have already placed an edit request to have it removed.

But this leads me to a broader question: why? Why this article? Unless you are tracking me... Which is fine, except that tracking me in order to place unwarranted tags on the articles I write starts to feel an awful lot like harassment. I am not sure I am willing to believe that you randomly came across this article long after it was written. If you want to place tags on articles I have written, please make sure that the tag is appropriate first and please make sure that you follow the tag's requirements when you do. You have a very large edit count on Wikipedia, and people with your level of expertise are expected to know when and how to use such tags and to be honest in your edit summaries about having placing them, yes? Because for all I can tell, you created the tag, then didn't want to say so in your edit summary so you removed some innocuous text, and then said the edit was about the removal of the text. That is careless at best and devious at worst. KDS4444 ^(talk) 01:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I have some serious concerns regarding your editing. You have added text and a ref, but the ref said the exact opposite of the text you added.[8] Your edit summary was "oi."

Anyway I do a lot of paid editing cleanup. Some of your edits to epididymitis raise concerns. And thus I looked into further edits which raised further concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi - the talk page for Ehlers–Danlos syndromes is still listed with an incorrect capitalized S at the end: Talk:Ehlers–Danlos syndromeS. I tried to move it to Talk:Ehlers–Danlos syndromes but got a message saying the target page already existed. I think the redirect needs to be fixed but I'm not sure how without messing things up further. Funcrunch (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Funcrunch have fixed that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You said in your message to me that you only use high-quality sources. You did not indicate which article in particular you were referring to, so there is no way I can actually look and try and figure out what you are talking about.

Second, since when are review articles and textbook chapters high quality sources? Medical textbooks are out-of-date the moment they are published. They frequently suffer from a narrow point of view, whether they are single/group authored, or (as typical for major textbooks) edited with an immense list of contributors (many/most who contribute a single chapter). It is common to find overlapping content in a single textbook (i.e. text in different sections of a book which cover the same topic) and find disparate, orthogonal, or down-right conflicting information/recommendations.

Third, review articles are notoriously biased. Drug (as well as test and device) manufactures pay one of their in-pocket 'experts', or just their marketing department ghost-write it and slap one of their well-known in-pocket 'experts' on it and send them a check. Supliments to journals, which often have topical reviews, deserve particular cynicism, as they are often thinly veiled infomercials, where they not only paid off the authors, but also the editorial process as well.

Fourth, an accepted standard of editorial ethics is that you should cite, as your source, the actual source. When authors become too lazy to look up, and read, the original work there are a wide range of problems.

• The original author (i.e. the one who put all the time and effort (and probably drug company money) into the design, conduct, analysis and authoring the report of the research. This is unfair.
• This practice also puts layers of subsequent (mis)interpretation between the original research publication and what you are reading.
  • This introduces each authors biases and errors.
  • It also makes it very difficult to even find the original research.

Consider the following all-too-typical example: someone cites a chapter in some honorable textbook about some aspect of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. That chapter's author was lazy, wanted to use Argument by authority to make a point they otherwise could not support,didn't know how to do a proper literature search, and/or didn't know how to properly read and analyze a publication. So they cited the American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) textbook. This textbook, in turn, is a rewrite/explaination/picture-book of the actual Guidelines for Acute Cardiac Care, which is a collection of guidelines which were published (and often w/ a lengthy discussion on-line and/or via letters to the editor) in Circulation and/or JAHA. These guidelines cite review articles. Some review articles cite other review articles. Eventually, after you have had to track down the published versions of the various papers and guidelines (some of which you may not have free/open access to the full text) to find the original paper, and find out that rather than some well-designed, government funded, well-run study with adequate power to detect clinically meaningful differences in outcome it is a manufacture funded study in 6 piglets with ambiguous results, poor statistical methodology, lack of adequate controls, and over-stated conclusions by the author. Did I mention that the abstract and the actual paper differ in major areas as well?

Long winded explanation why I think that review articles and textbook chapters are substandard references and what we need to do about them: I really think that one of our few chances of fixing the systematic, pervasive and harmful problems in the medical literature is to have community edited summary/review/encyclopedic articles, where there is both an opportunity to present the information in context, with collapsible levels of detail, with an opportunity for readers, experts, paper authors, etc. to discuss the methodology, the findings, the analysis, and the conclusions of a study. Not all of the details need to be in Wikipedia. There can be links (but not citations--rather a section on the bottom that lets you link out to other online resources, as well as cross link to other WP pages) to (particularly freely available on-line) reviews and textbooks. Some of this same process needs to run in parallel with domain experts doing Wikis (or Wiki-like efforts) that can assume a certain level of background knowledge and use the more concise and precise language of medicine. (e.g. [9] which uses Wikimedia software to create an online reference for emergency physicians, emergency nurses, and physician assistants working in emergency departments).

• I am not sure the single (or small group) edited textbook with an author or two per chapter is totally obsolete. Migrating away from the (particularly unstructured) topical review will take adaptation over time. I am not quite ready to pitch that baby out.
  • However, significant reforms are needed. People write review articles because #1 they have an intense fascination with a topic, and firmly believe that if they only wrote the best review ever everyone else would be able to share in their joy #2 They need additional papers to pad out their CV, or to meet some requirement before graduating from residency, #3 a drug company wants to promote a drug, often for indications they do not have FDA approval for marketing themselves, or #4 there is some well organized effort that uses a team of statisticians and subject matter experts (ideally w/o ties to drug/device/diagnostic equipment or test industry) who do systematic reviews (meta-analysis, etc.) like Best Evidence or the Cochrane databases/reviews.
    • The unbiased, mostly-evidence-based, systematic reviews are probably going to be very helpful, particularly if we can come up with a reasonable way to translate the knowledge into something we can use in an electronic health record/clinical decision support system.
      • This is a way off, not because of the technology (it is done in a lot of other complex domain), but because so many US clinicians are stuck with an outdated, poorly updated systems from a handful of mega-vendors. Politics and corporate vested interests are keeping this from coming to fruition.
      • Some medical publishers already have substantial efforts underway to convert tacit and explicit knowledge in conventional publication sources into something which can be inserted into an EHR system to help physicians (and other clinicians) see more patients and make fewer mistakes.

E.g. I just started reading the 4th publishing of the 3rd edition of a quick-summary/board-review type book. There were types, dose errors, missing "..not.."/"..no.." type articles, and numerous less egregious errors in every chapter. Again, 4th printing, and the publisher never bothered to correct obvious mistakes. I could not even find an errata on their web site. I hardly think I am the first person to note these errors, or submit them to the author/editor/publisher.

• A better, continuous, publishing model is used by many companies publishing documentation for their products, as well as references/texts in other domains.
  • They typically use some sort of document semantics mark up (e.g. DITA, DocBook) and authors submit their updates/edits/new material to a version control system and/or document workflow management system. Someone does technical edits, maybe there is a process of peer review, and the final version makes its way to the release repository.
  • Some automatic, periodic (can be every day, as most are smart enough to just quit and go home if no changes are noted) script is used to compile the various sections into chapters into books
  • Another task would in turn run a couple of scripts to generate whatever output they want (LaTeX for sending to the printer, Postscript for the printer, PDF/Epub for download, XHTML or Wikimedia markup for their website, CHM for Windows Help format, RDF/Atom for webfeeds, etc.).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by user:75.73.1.89 (talk • contribs)

You appear to be responding to a comment from Oct 14, 2016[10]

So I imagine it was this[11] which was completely unreferenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Bert Bisoce, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See WP:CITETYPE and WP:CITEVAR for information.  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: (a) Bert Bisoce doesn't exist, could you double check you get things right when leaving such messages, (b) it's bad form to template the regulars, linking them to welcome messages for new users and (c) it's particularly bad form to add to a welcome message complete bollocks about referencing articles - it's clearly not against the manual of style to eliminate lists of references and/or to use (the considerably better, much more coherent) in-line referencing. Nick (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Nick He means Bert Biscoe. His complaint I imagine is this edit[12]. Interesting how he simple reverted without joining the discussion I had started on the talk page.[13]

With respect to Aguyintobooks edits, however, I have more concerns than just this one article. Some of the AfC he has passed where no were close to meeting requirements for a new article. And the authors of them were either the subject themselves or paid by said subject (including this Gaurav Kotli) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've also noted the issues with Aguyintobooks and Articles for Creation approvals. A wide range of promotional crap being allowed into the project, and some strange rejections with little grounding in policy. I'd guess he'll get bumped from AFCH soon enough, though after more than a week of tedious whinging from the last person I pulled from AFCH, someone else can deal with Aguyintobooks and the earache that will result. Nick (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I had not noticed your discussion on the talk page, In fact looking at the edit history, you only posted on the talk page after my last edit. My irritation is entirely based on your bright idea of removing half the references from an article at AfD, without bothering to point this out on the AfD discussion. I get templated all the time, infact someone templated me in relation to this (my reaction was to template them of course, and you since you are involved as well :).

On a more serious note regarding these paid editors, you seem to be knowledgeable about this problem, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard considering a new format to the article wizard to encourage disclosure.

I make a point of specializing on articles with COI issues, I have rewritten and approved several this week already, since these users are not disallowed I just make a point of removing the issues and progressing. (unless its something like the bob bergen foundation, that was fun.)  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  22:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nick, Aguyintobooks , don't you realize that what you are doing is facilitating paid editing? They write an unsatisfactory article. You fix up the article for free, but they collect the money. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

DGG Your comment makes absolutely no sense. Did you ping the wrong person ? I'm trying to make sure that promotional and paid editing isn't approved through AfC, and where appropriate, is deleted. I would guess you meant to ping Aguyintobooks who is the person who is fixing up the sub-standard material and letting paid editors sit back and collect their payments (with the side effect that their portfolio with which to attract other users then expands. Nick (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nick, sorry, I was confused by the indentations; I have corrected it. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yup and AGIBs has had their privileges rolled back well the issues are looked into. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was me, not Nick, if you you to join in, take a look.  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  21:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)