User talk:DanaUllman/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia'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:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Skinwalker 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In Particular
I have no problem at all with you contributing to homeopathic articles, but please understand that repeatedly adding links to homeopathic.com, your personal commercial website, can and probably will be viewed as a conflict of interest. If you want to contribute positively, look at the article rewrite project linked to on Talk:Homeopathy - the rewrite is in need of writers who can cogently explain the pro-homeopathic position. Please read the links in the template above, and ask me if you have any questions. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest
Hi. Please read wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, in particular the section that states:
"Editors proposing to write about themselves, their own organizations, or matters they have very close ties to, are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors."
I will open a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard in order to generate input from uninvolved parties. Skinwalker (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can view and contribute to the discussion here. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi back. Citations were requested by others, and I provided them, one of which was not to my website (and yet, you deleted it for unknown reasons) and one of which was at my website but where I quoted from the original researcher, Madeleine Ennis. I am confused why my reference to original source information is considered a "conflict of interest" just because the information is at my website. I'm still new to providing info on wiki and am open to dialogue on this subject, but it seems that there's a catch 22...a request for a citation and an effort to delete source citations. danaullman
- Well, the first citation (I assume you refer to this one[1]) is a problem because it doesn't back up the claim in the article that proposals you made led to a change in the law. This could be solved by some different wording, e.g. "California law was changed in 2003, allowing alternative practitioners to practice without a medical license.(cite)" Or, if you can find a better citation that specifically discusses your role in the changed law, that would be even better.
- The second citation is a problem because it does not meet several standards set out in wikipedia's reliable sources policy. It is essentially a self-published work, with no editorial oversight other than your own. Again, this could be solved with some different wording, e.g. "Ullman objected to several problems in the experimental design used by the 20/20 laboratory.(cite)" or something of that nature - I'm open to suggestion. That way we cite what your opinion of the 20/20 study is, and we can link to your article as a rebuttal.
- Finally, pretty much any edit you make to your entry on Wikipedia, with the exception of correcting simple and uncontroversial information like erroneous birthdates or typos, is probably a conflict of interest. Please read the conflict of interest guidelines closely. The best thing for you to do is make suggestions and provide sources on either Talk:Dana Ullman or User talk:Danaullman and let other editors decide if and how to insert the material. Thanks for responding, please let me know if you have questions. If you want to talk with someone else about correcting information in your article, please see these instructions on how to do so. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
November 2007
Editors of topics like homeopathy often have serious disagreements about the way to proceed with the article. If you return to the article, please remember that our goal is to be neutral and verifiable, and that even for controversial topics the content has to be worked out by consensus on the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
DanaUllman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This blocking action is further evidence that the anti-homeopathic group have hijacked the information on homeopathy. (Long list of points elided)
Decline reason:
Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. You have been making numerous large controversial edits to push a point of view, and have made no attempt to discuss those changes before making them. You will remain blocked until such time as you agree to collaborate constructively towards building the encyclopedia rather than simply unilaterally push an agenda. In addition, your apparent conflict of interest is a factor that necessitates that you be more careful about edits made, not less. — Coren (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Coren...I have no problem in working collaboratively and to providing objectively verified information. I would like your (and others) advice on how to respond to the significant body of biased information at this site. My initial response listed numerous studies that have verified the clinical efficacy of homeopathic medicines, but this site has been hijacked by the skeptics of homeopathy and there is inadequate balance. My concern is balance. User:Danaullman
Additional thoughts...my history of participation in the homeopathic medicine information has shown responsible edits and additions and have provided objective references and critiques of references at the site. I have also many times sought to claim that the information at the homeopathy page was in dispute, due to the many efforts of mine (and many others) to change some of the clearly erroneous statements, and yet, each time my efforts to claim that this information was in dispute was deleted. I would like to work collaborately. I would like to provide references to the many meta-analyses that have shown positive results (as well as some that have not). Finally, I have personally chosen to be one of the few people at wikipedia who uses his own name, rather than a pseudoname. That said, I promise not to make large edit changes in the future (in the recent past, my largest edits have been deleted one objectionable paragraph). I have tried to figure out how to email the person who blocked me, but I cannot find his/her email. Can anyone help me here? User:Danaullman
- → Special:Emailuser/Moreschi — madman bum and angel 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
DanaUllman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request being unblocked and think that I am being unfairly punished. I emailed the administrator who blocked me several days ago, but he has not responded. I am an academician in homeopathy, have authored several chapters on homeopathy for medical textbooks published by Mosby, Oxford University, and the American Academy for Pain Management, and I regularly speak at medical schools (UCSF, UC Davis, Stanford). I previously sought to delete several of the "external links" at the homeopathy page because ALL of them were anti-homeopathy and did not provide a balanced point of view. I didn't delete two link because they were more fair, even though one was clearly anti-homeopathy. I also sought to delete reference to an article by Shang because there is a considerable body of strong and valid critique of this article. My own latest writing on this subject is at: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4477385342066275897&postID=6535490720777938770 -- All of my edits have included comments with rationale. I even use my own real name in my posts because I prefer to be transparent. This is rare on this site. I am concerned that the person who blocked me and the administrator do not seem to have objective views of homeopathy. I seek provide fair and balanced information. The paragraph that I sought to delete was full of misinformation, and its placement at the top of the article is neither fair or balanced.
Decline reason:
This account appears to exist only to promote a specific point of view; the block is legitimate. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
WP:RKC First, I only have an interest in accurate and referenced information on wikipedia. My above statement shows that I am a highly pubilshed author in the peer-review literature who is familiar with research on homeopathy and can and do provide fair and balanced review of respectable sources of information. I'm not clear how my above statement says or suggests that I only wish to promote a point of view. The subject of homeopathy at wikipedia has a history of controversy. For a long time, both sides of the issue agreed that this subject was so conversial that wiki had a notation that the information posted was "in dispute." The administrator who blocked me made a notation about "fringe science" which suggests that this administrator's bias is evident. I was criticized for deleting select external links, even though the anti-homeopathy links dominated this site...and after my work was undone several times, these inappropriate links have remained deleted, suggesting that my work is appreciated. The present blocking of my contribution is a serious effort to mute one of the leading sources of information about homeopathic research and homeopathic history. This action does not bode well for wikipedia's efforts to provide good and accurate information.
In re your email
I've been reviewing your contributions, and it appears evident this account has existed only for the purposes of pushing a pro-homeopathy POV into Homeopathy and related articles.
You claim to have since read and understood Wikipedia policies and guidelines and now wish to contribute positively. This is an excellent thing. However, I can only support unblocking you iff you would not further edit any article related to Homeopathy, where your conflict of interest is insurmountable and your point of view is militant. — Coren (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
DanaUllman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked “indefinitely” and my actions do not warrant this extreme restriction. I am relatively new to editing on wikipedia, and although I made some errors, these errors were neither substantial, repetitive, abusive, or without a clear or stated rational. Because I chose to be transparent by using my real name and because I am a well-known author of textbooks on homeopathy and chapters in medical textbooks on this subject, I have been targeted by people on wikipedia, including administrators, who have not shown a NPOV. I am not alone in expressing real concern about the administrative abilities and non-NPOV by user:Coren and user:Moreschi.
The subject of homeopathy is a controversial topic, and some people, including some administrators, have shown a non-wiki spirit and have had strong and biased (and sometimes ill-informed and uninformed) POV.
I want to make clear that I honor wikipedia and its policies. I am not a disruptive person. In fact, I am academically oriented; I respect dialogue; and I can, do, and will provide references and reliable information.
Being relatively new to this editing on wikipedia, I made the following mistakes: -- I erred when I linked to my own site. Although I committed this error just a couple of times, I didn't fully understand wiki policy, and I guarantee that it will not happen again (already, it hasn't happened since it was made aware of this problem). -- I erred when I broke the 3-change rule. I didn't know about this rule, and I think that I only committed this error once. I should have discussed my concerns on the talk page, even if I felt justified by my previous actions. -- I erred when I put into "total dispute" the homeopathy page. I should have discussed my concerns first on the talk page. -- I erred when I once used a sock puppet. Please know that this happened once and will not happen again.
If you review the editing under my own listing on wiki, you will see that there are several people who are writing unreferenced and unreliable information about me, they are deleting proper and reliable reference (such as an interview with me with UC Berkeley’s alumni magazine…at UC Berkeley’s website). Previously, some of my biographical information was deleted saying that it was unreferenced. When a reference was provided, they deleted it several times. Some people have referred to me as a “quack” which again breaks wiki policy on abusive grounds against a living person (this offensive remark was a tad ironic in the light of my interview with UC Berkeley and my list of academic publications).
Please also know that I believe that I have something to contribute to wikipedia and its readers. I sincerely ask you to grant me the right to edit on wikipedia. I am not an "advocate"; I am an educator (my MPH from UC Berkeley is in "health education").
Finally, I am concerned that some administrators have shown considerable bias in their administrative actions against me. I am concerned that they are doing this to others, and I honor wikipedia too much to be silent about this.
--Dana Ullman
Decline reason:
You will be unblocked if, and only if, you agree to a topic ban on Homeopathy and related articles as Moreschi has also offered. You are welcome to not accept this condition, but given your constant disruptive editing, you will not be unblocked otherwise. Now, please stop forum shopping— you have already requested review, on this page and by email, from many administrators and the decision remains. — Coren (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
In case you did not see my email
Yes, I will unblock but only if you agree to a ban from Homeopathy and all other reasonably related articles, defined quite loosely. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
DanaUllman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not accept this highly restictive blocking. I stand by my above statement. User:DanaUllman
Decline reason:
You already have an active unblock request, and I am inclined to agree with Moreschi. east.718 at 19:19, December 19, 2007
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.