User talk:Doc James/Archive 117

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doc James. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 110

←

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

I'm trying to understand why you blocked User:Thcadd. It looks like they were attempting to disclose their connection when you blocked them, and they don;t seem to have made any significant edits. What am I missing? Their edits seem very confused, but not necessarily any more. Was there evidence that they were a sock? - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Full disclosure did not occur here[1]. This topic has seen significant issues with undisclosed paid editing.

Yes the subject of the article wants the evidence that they paid for the article removed from the article. Having a paid editor remove the notification from said article is also disruptive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems possible that the subject wants the tag removed. That said, here Thcadd seems to be trying to disclose, and here they seem to be stating that they reviewed the article in return for compensation. Out of the total of four edits they tried made, two seem to be attempts to disclose, and one was an attempt to add their signature. - Bilby (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay and now they can properly disclose on their talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean that they can disclose yet again after you blocked them for not disclosing, even though they had twice. - Bilby (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

They did not disclose who paid them or through which company they work. So yes they can now disclose once and properly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You could, of course, have taken a few seconds to explain that to them first, rather than blocking without a warning after they appeared to have been trying to do the right thing. - Bilby (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The explanation is already on their talk page. Yes I get it User:Bilby you appear to not consider undisclosed paid editing to be an serious issue. We disagree on this.

There are four things that IMO should get one rapidly blocked: legal threats, copyright issues, outing of good faith editors, and undisclosed paid editing until those issues are dealt with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Why would you possibly think that I don't regard undisclosed paid editing as a serious issue? Of course I do. But we don't fix it by driving it underground, or by ignoring community standards. Either way, you stuffed up in this case, blocking someone for undisclosed paid editing without noticing that their edits were an attempt to disclose. At least take a bit more time to look into their edits first. - Bilby (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay good to know. They still need to properly disclose and can still do so. A block indicates that proper disclosure is not optional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

And yet an explanation before blocking would have been so much more effective. And more in keeping with community expectations of the use of blocks. Especially when the editor was clearly trying to do the right thing. - 10:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

They can still very much do the right thing. In fact they are required to do the right thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That's great. I hope they do. I also hope you start doing so as well, and warn before you block, but I guess we'll see how that goes. - Bilby (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

While in the process of splitting out the real medical information from the fake stuff at Alkaline diet you moved the new page and reverted changes to the existing page. Please see the discussion at Talk:Alkaline_diet#Distinction_between_groups_of_proponents and Talk:Alkaline_diet#Split_of_page. I understand that the current state is pretty poor, but that's the point of getting it into mainspace; getting others to help. I had intended to remove the legitimate-if-fringey medical stuff from Alkaline diet today, and after this message I'm going to restore Acid ash hypothesis and do that. If you could help, that would be greatly appreciated, but please don't unilaterally go around redirecting without discussion first. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks I see it now User:MPants at work. Initially it appeared simply like everything was to be duplicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

First off: Apologies if I sounded a little annoyed up there: I don't think there's a way not to when saying something like that. :)

Intially, it was duplicated. I had made some relatively minor wording changes while it was in my userspace, but then forgot about it for a few months. I noticed it again, and after giving it a quick read, saw that it was more-or-less cogent so I moved it yesterday into article space and starting working some more. It needs work, to be sure. But I think it will help draw some of the false-legitimacy off the alkaline diet article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Was confused initially. Fine with a split if that is what people want on the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

Hey. I noticed a file in the Wikipedia category: c:File:An example of plagarism of a work from Wikipedia.jpg that you uploaded looked a lot like it could be copyrighted. I was wondering what you think about this, and whether or not the file should or should not be deleted. Thank you. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 13:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Zhangj1079 The picture that I own is a major part of that page. I release that image under a CC BY SA license. Therefore IMO that page must be under an open license per the requirement of my copyright. The company in question has apologies and has said they will properly attribute in further additions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for explaining. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 13:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way here is the original image[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James. Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 13 September 2016. The articles Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork were created before his block, so WP:G5 does not apply. While you said he may have had previous blocked accounts because of a comment he made in 2012 ("I've been away from Wikipedia for a while"), that is unverified and unknown. Would you restore Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork? Both passed AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball and Chain (restaurant) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlightNetwork. You also made 157 article and article talk page deletions for the same reason. You deleted and restored White House Community Leaders Briefing Series as being okay. I'm uncomfortable with 157 pages being deleted when there's no undeniable evidence that there's a WP:G5 violation. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree and it's clear from Jeremy112233's habits of editing and facility, like this creation from his first few days after creating this account, and his self declaration that he was not really a new account. Given that apparently 100% of his edits (and those of his socks) matched undeclared paid editor profile, the G5 deletions were valid.

Given WP:NOTSUICIDE, it shouldn't be necessary to show legally conclusive evidence. However, if a new SPI were required to link to a preexisting LTA, I'd suggest looking at the sandbox similarities between Jeremy112233 and Sublimeharmony, for starters. If that's not cool enough, the Jeremy account was created less than two weeks before MooshiePorkFace. But it doesn't matter exactly who they are, the pattern is clear enough. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sublimeharmony was blocked by a checkuser 12 July 2013. Jeremy112233 was actively editing 12 July 2013. If these accounts were operated by the same person, the checkuser would have found and blocked Jeremy112233.

A checkuser on MooshiePorkFace was run at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MooshiePorkFace/Archive#21 November 2012. Jeremy112233 was actively editing 21 November 2012. If these accounts were operated by the same person, the checkuser would have found and blocked Jeremy112233.

That Jeremy112233 said "I've been away from Wikipedia for a while" and has Wikipedia experience does not prove there's a WP:G5 violation. I do not consider "it doesn't matter exactly who they are, the pattern is clear enough" to be sufficient to delete articles like Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork under WP:G5. When I reviewed the articles at AfD, neither qualified for deletion under WP:G11.

Cunard (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser shouldn't be treated like some oracle. These operators know how to use multiple networks to hide their tracks. At least sometimes. You want more? How about [3] and [4] . They are laughing at you, Cunard, and you are enabling them. What if you just stopped doing it? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not there's a possibility that the user was previously blocked, G5 and G11 don't apply in cases where the article has survived AfD. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

CU is NOT magic pixie dust. It does not pick up all a person's socks, in fact it only picks up a small number of a person's socks. Did this person have previous accounts, definitely. Were they previously blocked, using common sense, yes. In fact we have blocked accounts as mentioned with a similar editing pattern. Were these articles paid for and thus were they advertising, certainly by looking at them. So yes G5 and G11 applies. There creation is also a TOU violation which some here are willing to enforce. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way you did notice that Jeremy112233 voted in both AfD? [5][6] Both of these occurred after the TOU came into force.

Also we know that it is not that hard to create accounts that cannot be picked up by CU. We need to use common sense sometimes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that the editor did have prior accounts, and it is possible that one of those prior accounts was blocked. But I think we have two issues. One is whether or not it is acceptable to apply G5 on the possibility of a prior blocked account. The other is whether or not G5 can be used on articles that have survived AfD. The second question isn't controversial - under CSD, we cannot delete articles under G5 or G11 if they have survived a prior AfD.

In regard to the other issue, I don't think we want to be in a situation where we allow articles to be deleted under G5 simply because of a suspicion of prior accounts. However, where it seems to be extremely likely, perhaps IGR applies? - Bilby (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Will look later tonight as I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I have taken this to deletion review for review by the community. Cunard (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it is a very important discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

First off, thank you for your feedback on my talk page. Secondly, I went ahead and reverted the Visual Snow article back to the version before I made any edits to it. The revisions that you kept caused a problem with the references section as one of the named references was no longer there. I would add your additions back in, but I am hesitant to edit the article. Moving past that I would like to work with you to improve the article. I acknowledge your comments in regards to the primary sources, and case reports. However, some of the articles that were used as references were from PubMed which per WP:MEDRS are credible sources. I am still unclear if the ones that I used would be qualified though to include in the article. I would ask that you please review those ones as well. I do have an additional question in regards to this link which you cited as an unreliable source. However, that is a web excerpt from ISBN: 1412019176 which is a published text book. From my understanding that would be reliable as a tertiary source. Please let me know your thoughts. Instead of giving up on this article I'd like your assistance. Johnny C Morse 04:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not everything published on PubMed is a review article. Note that peer reviewed is NOT the same as review article.

This book is from 2004 (a little old) and is not a major medical textbook[7]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you think Vitamin C is worthy of a nomination to be considered as a Good article? I saw that it was ranked Good in 2007, but then delisted in 2010. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it is nearly there. A few statements still need good refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Here is Edgars from that Riga meeting. Sorry I haven't get in touch with you after that, you know - RL and stuff. Just wanted to let you know, that I haven't forgot about Wikidata. P.S. About those top-medical-editor-barnstars - are one for 2016 still needed or it already was created at time of our talk? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Great :-) The banner for 2016 has been sent out. Next will be for 2017, hopefully to be sent out in Jan or Feb of 2018. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
Hope this message will find you well. I was working on Wikidata and thought to add your name at d:Q16225640 in a couple of Indic languages. Is it possible for you to kindly tell me how do you pronounce your surname? IPA (International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Consonants) would be fine. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how IPA works. Will upload me saying my name in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello - I work in Marketing at MediaMath and it was just brought to my attention that our company page was deleted. Could you tell me why as a number of employees are inquiring about it?

Thank you, --2604:2000:D15E:1400:45F3:9AAF:72C1:447E (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Lauren Fritsky

Because the person your group hired to write the article in question used sock puppets / is banned from editing WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James:

Hi there, I noticed that you have added the COI tag onto the Jason Pomeroy page, when I had worked with @Drewmutt: to remove. All COI has been appropriately made, and I feel this is a "tag of shame". I have not seen any explanation of why you have done this (checked the various talk pages and haven't found anything - possible I missed it somehow). Would you mind talking me through your rationale for this?

As a paid editor User:Ojellerton you by definition have a COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Skycourt and skygarden is familar from COIN, is this a repost? Or another editor? Or the same editor? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir, I have disclosed COI and from the beginning I said yes. I requested every one to edit as well by placing the request code. If you feel that I should not write and ask any one else to write or edit it, could you please edit it as there can not be more neutral than you? I dont even mind asking some one else to write it for me with another profile but I doubt it will make any difference because the matter will remain the same, only thing is that it will be seen as some one else have written it. Also, I had requested JJMC89 to review the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JJMC89&oldid=799374232#Could_you_please_review_this_biography before uploading it here. He may have not seen then, but I can see his edits now.

However, I have not written this by myself as well. Just want to be clear, few people "who know me" have written it. I made a particular profile for my self and uploaded it, which i I will use it for editing articles as well since it is a matter of interest for me. I do understand that Wikipedia says try not to publish on your own about yourself and if you do, ask some one to edit or review it. Hence, I felt it would be great to publish on my own and then ask people to accept it or not which I exactly did. I want the article to be published with majority census rather than just one editor's acceptance or rejection. Hence every one's decision becomes important for me including yours. So decision is yours, sir. I would be happy with anything. Thank you for all of your help. In case you want to delete it, delete in a zippy. If some one sees it, it would not look good for me and if it is deleted, I will never have my profile uploaded by any one on Wikipedia ever again, thats a promise! Thanks for your decision in advance irrespective of a negative or a positive outcome for me.

MedTime 03:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to add an article about yourself here. That is what Facebook and Linkedin are for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Doc James,

My name is Matt Nemet and I am a Public Relations professional at GCI Health, a firm specializing in healthcare. One of our clients, electroCore LLC (a privately-held, U.S. based neuroscience and technology company), has expressed interest in increasing patient awareness on vagus nerve stimulation as a treatment for headaches, and views Wikipedia as a valuable outlet to focus on as they market gammaCore® (a non-invasive vagus nerve stimulator). The company’s current focus is on primary headache, which includes cluster headache and migraine. In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released gammaCore for the acute treatment of pain associated with episodic cluster headache in adult patients.

We have compiled a few sample articles to provide additional background for your consideration, as we know Wikipedia readers depend on you for their all-inclusive research. Past coverage on electroCore can be found on Forbes, Bloomberg, Medical Design & Outsourcing, Medical Plastics News, Medscape, PR Newswire and Business Wire. Past coverage on gammaCore can be found on Reuters, MedCity News, Medgadget, 6abc Action News, Migraine Again, Men’s Health, and MD Magazine. We felt that given your previous efforts editing Wikipedia pages on Cluster Headache, Migraine, Vagus Nerve Stimulation, Neurostimulation, Neuromodulation, Vagus Nerve and Headache you might be interested in including gammaCore as a potential treatment for this condition, adding to this widely depended-on and ever-growing database of fact.

In the spirit of abiding by Wikipedia’s guidelines, we want to be upfront in our awareness that neither the company nor those directly associated with the company can make such edits. It is an important set of rules and guidelines that we are willing to respect, and want to make sure that this is completed the right way. Therefore, we wish to approach experienced editors, such as yourself, who can be trusted with assessing the value of the proposed information in order to make accurate and appropriate page additions.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards, Matt Nemet

+++

Past coverage:

[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21],

Please read WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this does not belong on Wikipedia. Virtually all of your sources are press releases or obviously sponsored blog posts; there is nothing that meets Wikipedia's criteria as spelled out in WP:MEDRS. Also the FDA approval was a 510(k) process, meaning that the device is considered substantially equivalent to old technology. Note that we already have an article on vagus nerve stimulation. Looie496 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree we need high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why no edit summary for your reversion[22]? If it's that the reverted did not fully understand the medical use of disorder, then in what way? I will revert your reversion so that you are able to put the reason in the relevant place.

The ref supports the prior text. So I restored it. Did you read the ref? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, With your agreement I have contacted the author of the article I cited with regards to the ("catalytic") effect of Streptococcus gallolyticus on colorectal cancer growth. The cited article was Kaldy,P (PhD): Une bactérie est bien liée au cancer colorectale (A bacterium is well associated with colorectal cancer) "Streptococcus gallolyticus" a la propriété unique d'activer le développement des tumeurs du colon. Sciences et Avenir, No847, Sept 2017 p66

The answer from the author Pierre Kaldy, PhD is: Voici l’article que vous demandez : (Here is the reference you require:)

http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006440 Veuillez noter que la bactérie ne provoque pas le cancer, mais stimule son développement. (Please note, that the bacterium does not generate cancer, but stimulates its development) Nevertheless, I don't think it is useful to hide this information from the reader.

Kind regards, LouisBB (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:LouisBB that is a primary source. We are looking for a secondary source on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what is required. If you click on the http source you get all the authors, the abstract of the article, and the conclusions. I presume, that one can obtain the full article for a cost, which is beyond the finances of the average Wiki contributor. Is a second article required on the subject? This is not my first contribution to an article on a medical subject, but I have never been demanded more than one citation. Please, can you give me an example on another medical article if this is insufficient? I'd like to learn. LouisBB (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:MEDRS? Please also read review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:LouisBB I will share my experience here. For a dietary supplement product, I wrote a paragraph describing the results of five clinical trials. Everything was deleted. The completeness of the citations did not matter. The number of citations did not matter. What MEDRS calls for as appropriate citations are meta-analyses, systemic reviews, and reviews, i.e. secondary sources. Lastly, the reference in question is for in vitro and animal work - not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes. David notMD (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Already in 1920, German physician Eduard Schott in Cologne described the Precordial thump.

You are a real doc ? And you nothing about German physician Eduard Schott in Germany: Read please: E. Schott: Über Ventrikelstillstand (Adams-Stokes’sche Anfälle) nebst Bemerkungen über andersartige Arhythmien passagerer Natur. in: Deutsches Archiv für Klinische Medizin. Band 131, 1920, pages 211–229.

188.96.183.147 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a modern source that reviews the topic per WP:MEDRS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Doc James,

Twinkle reverted a revision containing a citation to a NCBI research article. The edit makes a small addition to the content of the article. I don't see why citation #52 is not allowed, yet #51, which also cites a NCBI research article, is allowed? --Candide124 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

52 is a primary source while 51 is a secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

{{about|the drug also called "Dilantin"|dolantin|pethidine}} :''Also not to be confused with [[hydromorphone|Dilaudid]]''

cf. you made edit on Dilantin as "not similar" but is not the above disambiguation purpose meant for similarity of naming convention solely? i.e. purpose of "not to be confused with" meaning they are *infact* dissimilar? Nagelfar (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Not every med that has a similar spelling should be listed before the article starts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Grief and Sadness are different terms and mean very different things. All the sources use the word grief (not sadness). The word sadness was there when I started my editing binge and I left it. Sad people do not hold memorial services. Grieving people conduct such ceremonies (in the US). Calling grief sadness is minimizing the event (according to the sources). Please restore the word grief because it is the term used in the sources. It may be considered a synonym but not in this context. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree and have started a section on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

...to vitamins and nutrient minerals dietary recommendations. I am going to step away from Wikipedia for rest of September, as I find that I am developing a bad case of OWN. Back in October. David notMD (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to ask if anyone had any evidence that the Chart on Glioblastoma on the talk page had changed. I don't have any evidence, which is why I wanted to change the question.Bjoh249 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But please do not remove the text I had written. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Curious why you are so convinced BeeHex was a paid-for article? I appreciate your zealousness to police Wikipedia, looking at your talk page-- which I've read is the place to hold such a conversation. But I just don't see the BeeHex page as one that was paid for and then not declared. How would they ever remove such a flag? Why not just email them to confirm that an intern started the page mid-2016-- which is quite obvious as it is-- and audit their bank statements? It's just difficult to see how to disprove such a thing as you claim. And to do so with so many people who follow this company's story. If your concern is about Jordan, the Darius Fisher pawn, he's not even at BeeHex anymore, looking at the BeeHex roster. Hope this helps. This one is a "false positive."2601:483:4A00:1427:511:EC24:AACB:4C0 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay so you are saying this this article was written by one of their interns? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying I know that it was started by an intern, Abdul, a long time ago (circa summer 2016), in very, very different form from how it looks today. Looking at the rules I also know (1) definitely not paid for. (2) while he probably should've written he was an intern (unpaid) on the talk page, it's been edited by so many others and so much that even if a COI flag was warranted last summer, it would clear anyway by now. Maybe one option is to note that an intern started the page, written on the BeeHex talk page. 2601:483:4A00:1427:511:EC24:AACB:4C0 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

An intern has a COI and should not have written the article. A significant change has not occured.[23] And 2016 is not a long time ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry you're corresponding with weirdos who write things like "short bus." Looks like they have no clue that you're an intelligent doctor.

At any rate, I've updated to the more accurate COI flag, since there was a COI at the start. But this was for sure not "paid" for, reading how all of that works. Perhaps let's leave this be with the flag for now? 2601:483:4A00:1427:511:EC24:AACB:4C0 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Interns are often paid some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Email confirmation that Abdul Alqaroot was unpaid. He apparently had / has a salaried job. And volunteered at the company, having met the CEO as volunteers for engineers without borders (the thing that's similar to doctors without borders). 2601:483:4A00:1427:511:EC24:AACB:4C0 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

One can be "paid" in ways other than cash. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The TOU defines paid editing as expecting to received compensation. Someone who is acting solely as a volunteer, and is not being compensated for the edits, is not a paid editor. They may still have a COI, but they are not in violation of the TOU. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• IP editor, you are obviously in touch with the company and are obviously here lobbying for them. You need to disclose your COI and whether you are being paid for this lobbying effort. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We've always expected that admins would give people an opportunity to respond to a warning before being blocked. With User:Deannew you warned the editor that they should disclose if they are being paid, and then blocked them for "declining to disclose" three hours later. In the meantime they made no edits at all. How did they "decline to disclose" if they didn't make a single edit? It is possible that they were being paid. But you need to give editors time to at least see the warning, rather than blocking before they even have an opportunity to respond. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

They emailed me and declined to disclose. I know they saw the notice as they emailed me about it.

Our rules are not that hard. If you are in the marketing department of the stuff your write about you need to disclose that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll presume that they agreed that they were being paid but declined to disclose their relationship with the client, rather than told you that they weren't being paid. - Bilby (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

They declined to disclose their relationship yes.

We have plenty of people who say "Yes I am getting paid to do the marketing for X, but I am throwing in the editing of WP as a bonus and thus am not getting paid specifically to edit Wikipedia". That explanation is BS. If your job is marketing, the contract does not need to spell out each specific type of marketing before that type "counts". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If they are being paid to engage in marketing, and they edit Wikipedia on articles that related to companies they represent, then they need to disclose. If that is the case, they need to disclose per the TOU. I do draw a line at working for a company in a position that does not involve marketing, and making changes for which no compensation is expected or received, as that is just standard COI editing, not paid editing. But I do not know which is the case in this situation. - Bilby (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree User:Bilby. I make the same distinction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Doc James,

I noticed you deleted the PrimeRevenue page on 02 September and I was wondering the reasons why and if there was a way to bring it back up. I have come across new information to update and do not want to create a new page from scratch if it's possible to edit and update the former page.

Thank you so much.

User:Victrolafire The person who created it was in breach of WP's rules. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)