Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:51, 12 May 2007

COI

Hi,

I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but wikipedia does have Conflict of Interest guidelines, which might be germane in your editing of BHRT articles. That being said, I think BHRT is a load of crap, and have added your webpage to the external links section of the T.S. Wiley and BHRT. Fortunately, we're still allowed to edit pages we think are a load of crap. Anyway, if anyone gives you grief over the editing of the pages, I offer my services as an intermediary to skirt the guidelines :)

--WLU 13:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My only interest in this matter—after witnessing the behavior of Wiley and her husband (Nraden), which I won't go into here—is that the full story be told, not just pro-Wiley propaganda. It earns me nothing, and indeed it costs me time and money.

--Debv 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem that's why I've got a watch list! To be clear, you are allowed to edit the page, you just aren't really allowed to cite wileywatch.com (or whatever). If you have other sources which are independent of your own website, those are allowable. I'm still in the midst of editing the page by the way. WLU 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I understand that. But if I'd done the cleanup, it would have been pouring fuel on a fire. Thanks again.--Debv

Talk pages

Please read WP:TALK before modifying talk pages beyond adding your own text. It is considered bad form to remove anything other than blatant vandalism or personal attacks from talk pages, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not. The Times review of the book is a legit source of information and counts as a reliable source. I have re-added the information to the talk page, if you wish to discuss whether the link should be placed on the main page, please do so. WLU 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction -- my mistake. --Debv 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm confused about why you added the reports of adverse effects from the Wiley Protocol to Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy but deleted the same material from T. S. Wiley. As I argue on Talk:T. S. Wiley, the material presented is not challenged by any party in this controversy, and therefore is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. Please discuss. (User:Debv)

Hi,

The T.S. Wiley page should discuss the person, T.S. Wiley - who she is, what she's done, etc. Criticisms of her qualifications are appropriate there, though criticisms of BHRT are not. The protocol exists separate from the person - T.S. Wiley is not the same thing as BHRT. However, criticisms of BHRT is appropriate for the BHRT article, as it directly relates to the page itself. You could probably have a short section (more like a sentence) on the BHRT page discussing how the originator of the protocol is unqualified, but you shoudn't be discussing Wiley at length there.

Of course, it's always possible that I just forgot, or changed my mind - I think my edits to the pages are several days apart at least, and I don't have a master plan on what to put where, I just go with what makes sense to me at the time. It's a terrible error to assume that Misplaced Pages and it's editors are anything other than a lurching Frankenstein's monster, hastily cobbled together from the jagged assemblages of individual editor's lives and time, held together by whims and edit summaries like electronic neck bolts :)

WLU 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiley protocol

There is a new page, Wiley protocol, which should be used to directly address that particular type of BHRT, rather than using either Wiley's own page, or the BHRT page. Thought you'd be interested. WLU 19:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've actually been intending to make that change. Debv 19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Head's up!

As a 'head's up', you may want to read up on the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution policy. I have advised Nraden to do the same, and it's handy to be forewarned. I am not certain if he will pursue dispute resolution at all, or if he does so, it will be against myself or you (as we are the two who seem to butt heads with him the most) but it isn't much of a deductive leap to expect one of us to have to deal with it. WLU 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah I saw that earlier. He's certainly free to pursue his grievances. --Debv 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Wiley protocol, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warning.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. Jehochman (/_contrib) 12:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-pov|Wiley protocol}} Jehochman (/_contrib) 12:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you have a web site attacking Dr. Wiley. Whether or not your points are legitimate, I think you are too close to this situation to edit neutrally. I request that you make your contributions on the article talk page only, and let other editors decide whether the material belongs in the article or not. Jehochman (/_contrib) 12:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)