User talk:Michipedian/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 3: August 2017 – December 2019.

• Note: From this point forward, my username is Michipedian.

Dessert hummus

Thanks for your note. The sources you give don't show that it's a major variant. One is an article in a local newspaper about the opening of a store. The other is about a Shark Tank investor thinking it might have some value, based on $1m total sales. If this does become an important variant at some point, and has reliable, third-party sources supporting that, fine. But I don't think it's there yet. --Macrakis (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I guess I agree for now. —Michipedian (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Tobacco use disorder

Hi Michipedian, I have just reviewed your new article about tobacco use disorder. I have found that a substantive article about the topic already exists, referencing the same ICD10 at Nicotine dependence. I have therefore redirected your article to that one. Kind regards, _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of that article. Thanks for letting me know. —Michipedian (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Michipedian. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your edits with regard to Mirth Provisions‎ and related topics are promotional. I am aware of our past interaction here.

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, Michipedian. 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 which forms all or part of work 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.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. 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).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Mirth or any other subject you have edited, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog,

I am aware that you are aware of that interaction and that that interaction is permanent public information. I suppose it is thus appropriate if I clarify why I asked that question.

My concern about the conflict of interest guideline was in fact about cannabis—cannabis-infused beverages more particularly—but I determined that my issue is in fact not a conflict of interest issue but is rather an advocacy issue. I will provide you with more information here, and you may be the judge of that yourself.

I am personally a strong advocate for the legalization of recreational cannabis and a strong advocate for the recreational use of cannabis-infused beverages over other methods of cannabis consumption as well as over alcoholic beverages, in certain situations. I have spent a significant amount of time thinking about the potential that cannabis-infused beverages have in providing a healthier, safer alternative to the two aforementioned options, and I have even considered starting a cannabis-infused beverage company myself. However, I live in Michigan, where cannabis is only legalized for medical purposes and where the laws have made such a prospect quite difficult. I believe that edibles have only explicitly been legal since 2016, and even then, the transportation of the products puts one at severe legal risk, since some law enforcement agents will weigh the entire edible product and consider it "useable marijuana". That means that, if one transports a shipment of five pounds of edibles, she faces the risk of life imprisonment. Trump's appointment of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General was just the nail in the coffin.

Today, I follow the cannabis-infused beverage market as closely as possible, since I consider my business idea to be on the back burner and think that, if Michigan and federal law change, the company could in fact become feasible. Until then, however, I have no interest in gambling with my entire life every time I transport a shipment. In the mean time, at least, I have decided that I can help popularize cannabis-infused drinks by improving their image on Wikipedia. I also feel that many cannabis-related articles have been and are particularly unclear and sloppy, which has further motivated me to improve them, as I am also a strong supporter of Wikipedia as a whole and dedicate a significant portion of my time to improving it as much as possible.

Mirth Provisions is a company of which I became aware in 2015. I believe they are the best cannabis-infused beverage company that exists today, with Le Herbe as a close second. I am basing these judgments purely on the presentation of their products, as I have never consumed a beverage from either company, although I do own a bottle of Legal that my friend brought home for me when they visited Oregon, since they were aware of my passion for the market.

I created the Mirth Provisions article because I think it is a great company. I have emailed them once, requesting that they send an email that would allow for the uploading of their logo to Wikipedia; however, I never heard back from them. I also considered emailing them asking for more references on their company, beyond the ones I was able to find through Google, but I never did that because I feared it was getting too close to a conflict of interest.

Although I am a strong advocate for cannabis-infused beverages, I am first and foremost a Wikipedian, and I don't think all my edits on the Mirth Provisions article have been promotional. I am sorry for any kind of inappropriately promotional editing I have contributed, and I am consistently aware of WP:NPOV during all of my edits, not just those regarding Mirth Provisions or cannabis-infused drinks, but on Wikipedia as a whole.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or if you believe my situation is in fact a conflict of interest situation, in which case I will respond appropriately, in line with Wikipedia guidelines.

—Michipedian (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply -- that makes sense and I appreciate you being forthright.

The goal you stated: I can help popularize cannabis-infused drinks by improving their image on Wikipedia. is coming through in your editing. So you are being true to your mission, which is a credit to your ...being somebody who is self-aware and knows what they are after (I mean that!)

However, that goal conflicts with Wikipedia's mission, which is to provide people with articles that summarize accepted knowledge in a community of editors who can work under pseudonyms if they wish -- to help people who want to learn stuff. That is defined in WP:NOT. Most of NOT is dedicated to what Wikipedia is not... Being an open project, lots of people arrive here with misperceptions of what we are up to. A lot of people come here to use WP to shape perceptions or to promote something, and so we have WP:PROMO as a section within NOT. PROMO specifically disallows using WP for promotion.

The goal also conflicts with WP:NPOV, which says that we summarize what reliable sources say, giving WEIGHT to what they give WEIGHT to. (Your use of the source about the exploding bottles, without mentioning the exploding bottles in the content, was... a real "tell" that you were not aiming at the mission of Wikipedia.)

In my view (fwiw), really high quality articles that honestly discuss the actual story of the business - its struggles, its strategies and the way it changed strategies to deal with changing situations or past screw-ups - are way more useful to readers who want to understand and get involved with legal cannabis. I aim for writing things like Harvard Business School case studies (without the original analysis of course) - which are learning tools for people who study and want to excel in business. At minimum though, articles about companies and their products should just honestly capture the story. They should never be promotional.....

Does that make sense? (btw, I have laid out what Wikipedia is, and how it works, here: User:Jytdog/How - you might (?) find that helpful?) Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. I will take a hiatus from editing cannabis-related articles for the rest of the year, which will give me time to focus on school, work, and other interests I have on Wikipedia. In the mean time, I'll read over all the polices with which you have provided me. Thank you for your correspondence. —Michipedian (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a pleasure talking with you Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You as well. :) —Michipedian (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Featured list?

Hi, Michipedian! I very much appreciate the work you did in improving List of edible seeds. I think it's an excellent list article now. I think it could be a featured list, because it seems to match the criteria. Should we nominate it? If so, I'd like to finish adding photographs to every table row before that.

Thanks for your work! —hike395 (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not quite there. Wait for it. Look at my sandbox. Something more comprehensive like that is needed before it can be a featured article, properly. —Michipedian (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC):

I've waited 11 years, a little while longer won't hurt. —hike395 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea the article had such a history behind it. Thank you for your appreciation for my work! I developed those tables back in 2014 and had just gotten around to publishing them. I'm working on a comprehensive, dynamic, exhaustive list. Thank you so much for your photographic contributions! —Michipedian (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hike395, your input here is welcome. —Michipedian (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Talk header

Please do not add that template to random talk pages. It's for highly contentious pages, like Talk:Donald Trump, that attract scads of questionable input from noobs and flamers. On a page like Talk:Pumpkin seed, it's just a huge, annoying block of clutter that impedes easy use of the talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Got it, I won't do that anymore. Thanks for letting me know. —Michipedian (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you so much for your hard work in expanding the Kerrytown page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I always wanted one of these. :) —Michipedian (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For excellent contributions to various Wikipedia articles Raymond Leonard (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm honored. Michipedian (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Esperanto

Hi,

Thank you for your extensive work on the Esperanto article and topics related to it. Best Regards. Oliszydlowski, 12:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Feel free to go through it and add any improvements or corrections you think would help. I would appreciate another pair of eyes or two on all of it. Michipedian (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)