Patient 32
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
- Adding
{{unblock-un|your new username here}}on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page. - At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
- Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
- Adding
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Patient 32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Patient 32
Accept reason:
OK. Per using my eyes, I've unblocked you. If Diannaa doesn't think it was right, she can do something about it. I can't see how you got renamed while blocked, though... Peridon (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- That name is the reason you were blocked - but I can't really see why. Perhaps @Diannaa: can explain it. Peridon (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hang on - that's not the name in the blocking notice. You've been renamed. Peridon (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
edit
|
Thanks for your interest in Cleveland Clinic. If you ever want to talk about Wikipedia and medicine or hospitals then talk to me. I would have a chat with you by voice or video. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC) |
Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!
editWelcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).
We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:
- Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
- Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
- Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit
- Hi Patient 32! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 20:16, Tuesday, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit - Hi Patient 32! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 21:06, Tuesday, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit - Hi Patient 32! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 11:22, Wednesday, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Conflict of interest
editHi Patient32, your edits to date have been on Cleveland Clinic are focused on a single issue. This makes your account what we call a "single purpose account" (please see WP:SPA) I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some questions for you below.
Hello, Patient 32. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.
Comments/questions
editWikipedia is a scholarly project, and like all scholarly endeavors, disclosure and management of conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it.
First things first - disclosure.
Would you please let me know if you have any relationship with Cleveland Clinic? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- user:Jytdog Thank you for contacting me. No, I have no Conflict of Interest. I receive no compensation other than from retirement disability. I am a former military and commercial pilot whose career came to an end due to medical error/harm/disability. I have been a volunteer patient advocate for Consumer Union Safe Patient Project for two years. I recently was a volunteer guest speaker on patient harm/medical oversight at Healthwatch USA, another non profit. I was introduced to Wikipedia through a Consumer Union Safe Patient Project colleague. I recently sought out training and assistance from user.bluerasberry who has been very helpful. I have sourced all of my entries. I hope this answers your concerns.
- Please provide me your thoughts on my entry this morning on Cleveland Clinic talk page. Thank you.Patient 32 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply - that makes things a little more clear... I hope you will entertain a bit more discussion as COI in Wikipedia is a more complicated than who pays who. Would you please tell me - did the medical error happen at Cleveland Clinic? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- user:Jytdog Indeed it did. I am one of scores of patients permanently harmed and disabled at the Cleveland Clinic in a surgical department that had no credentialing or privileging of staff or residents cited in the surveys. My harm is not the issue. The issue is about the government findings of safety violations, violations of CMS Conditions and Standards, and citations for "immediate jeopardy" which underlies harm to patients documented by the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS). This is the issue documented by Modern Healthcare, Leapfrog, CMS Hospital Acquired Conditions, and in the CMS citations and termination letters. Please provide me your comments about the sourced entries on the Cleveland Clinic talk page this morning. Patient 32 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for being honest about that. Please do read WP:COI - you do have an external relationship with the subject of the article, that would affect your editing of the article here in WP. An example - we have an article about a farm that two editors were arguing fiercely about and the community eventually got them to admit that one of them was the guy who owned the farm, and the other was his neighbor, and they had been feuding in the real world for about 10 years! In another instance, an editor was filling an article about a drug company with all kinds of negative information, and on the talk page she said that she was suing the company. So.. yeah. Do you see what I mean about you having a COI? If so, we can talk about what that means. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern about a conflict of interest. However my research into patient harm (not just mine), medical oversight including Medical Boards, CMS, Joint Commission, State Insurance Commissions, has led to my invitation to Consumer Union and to speak publicly at medical conferences about my work. I believe I have become a recognized subject expert. You may wish to speak to Consumer Union and to Healthwatch USA to obtain their opinion on my subject knowledge. Given this, I believe this statement on Wiki statement on external COI applies: But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while making sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. As you will note, I do not address my harm/disabilities; the fraudulent credentials of the surgeon in my case; fraudulent and altered medical records; nor the failure of the hospital to credential or privilege surgeons. I limit my entries to only reliable journal sources and government documents. I believe my editing complies with Wiki rules. Patient 32 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am here on your talk page, to talk about your COI. I will go the CC article and discuss what you wrote there, there. Please let me know if you agree that you have a COI with regard to the Cleveland Clinic. Please finish this conversation with me. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern about a conflict of interest. However my research into patient harm (not just mine), medical oversight including Medical Boards, CMS, Joint Commission, State Insurance Commissions, has led to my invitation to Consumer Union and to speak publicly at medical conferences about my work. I believe I have become a recognized subject expert. You may wish to speak to Consumer Union and to Healthwatch USA to obtain their opinion on my subject knowledge. Given this, I believe this statement on Wiki statement on external COI applies: But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while making sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. As you will note, I do not address my harm/disabilities; the fraudulent credentials of the surgeon in my case; fraudulent and altered medical records; nor the failure of the hospital to credential or privilege surgeons. I limit my entries to only reliable journal sources and government documents. I believe my editing complies with Wiki rules. Patient 32 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, I do not believe I have a conflict of interest with the Cleveland Clinic which is related to my sourced entries as I have stated above. What entry do you believe entered represents a conflict of interest?Patient 32 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, so we have a problem. Above, I asked you to read WP:COI, and i explained that in Wikipedia, a conflict of interest is created if you have a relationship in the real world, with the subject of articles that you work on here in WP. You have a beef with Cleveland Clinic due to the fact that you were harmed there. In my view, that beef constitutes an external relationship. COI is about the relationship, not your actual edits. In your case, a negative relationship. Having a beef with someone like the two farmers i mentioned, being in litigation with someone like the Novartis person, or having been harmed by a hospital and then concentrating on their safety record in the article about them... all those are COIs - in my view that is all really clear. If we cannot work this out between us, I can file a case at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and we can get more members of the community to weigh in. Shall I do that, or do you agree now, that you have a COI with regard to the Cleveland Clinic? (btw, having a COI is not the end of the world, it just means that you have to act a bit differently, in article where you have a COI). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, I do not believe I have a conflict of interest with the Cleveland Clinic which is related to my sourced entries as I have stated above. What entry do you believe entered represents a conflict of interest?Patient 32 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Patient 32, Jytdog pinged me to comment here. I agree that you have a COI in relation to adding criticism to the Cleveland Clinic if you were left with long-term problems because of something that happened there. Similarly, if staff from the Cleveland Clinic were to revert you, that would be a COI for the same reason. But you're welcome to make suggestions for edits on the talk page, and if you've become a subject-matter expert in patient safety, you can certainly use that expertise to Wikipedia's benefit in other articles. Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)