User talk:Haydee Belinky

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haydee Belinky! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wrapping technology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dehydron, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTPROMO. The content you are generating is some of the most grossly promotional work I have found on Wikipedia. The encylopedia is not here to say how great anything is, much less an unproven drug discovery technology. In fifteen years we may look back and say "wow look there are 20 drugs on the market based on this work" but right now all the glory you are pouring on this is hype. We. don't. do. hype. here. So please stop. And if you have any personal connection with this work please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and follow it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my re-working on the article Dehydron and inform if you find it sufficiently objective now. I have tried to remove anything promotional. Dehydrons have been covered in all major venues, such as Nature, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, Scientific American, you name it. Thanks much for your help. HB

It is improving but there is far to go.Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the tag about better sources again, I will nominate you to be blocked for edit warring. Leave the tag on until there is consensus that the article is sourced well enough. You don't know what you are doing yet, do not be aggressive. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now documented the statements with sources including reviews in Nature, Scientific American, Royal Society, Chemical Society Reviews and Project Syndicate. I have also removed promotional content. Further improvements welcome!

Haydee Belinky

I have a busy day and will not get to review the content and sources until tomorrow at the earliest. Please do not be surprised if further work needs to be done. And I am not sure that both topics are independently notable; it may be that we just have one article (they overlap about 90%).Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this Epistructural tension. also promoting Ariel Fernandez' work. I wonder how many of these there are? Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog called my attention to these articles -- see the discussion on my talk page,

In order to evaluate them, it would help greatly if you could clean up the referencing using the standard formatting so the author and title of the article display there are several methods -- see WP:REFSTART.

You'll also note my comments. It is usually advisable to have a smaller number of good articles, than a larger number of weak ones: not only does it make deletion less likely, and lessen the appearance of promotionalism, but it avoids duplication, and is clearer to the readers. . If there are related concepts, the best way is to write one good substantial comprehensive article covering the more specific concepts , and make redirects to it from the other terms.

I personally am not primarily concerned much about the possibility of multiple editors being the same individual, or working for the same individual, but other people are very much concerned about these situations, so it is always best to stick to one username per person, and explain and relationship s and conflict of intereston the ser pages.

It would help if you replied at the discussion on my talk page, unless it moves elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your message here, you have a conflict of interest with regard to all things pertaining to Ariel Fernandez. Please read WP:COI. If you are actually paid to edit pages related to him you have been in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use, as described at the COI page, and you should cure that breach immediately. You should not edit pages directly related to Ariel Fernandez, again as described on the COI page. If you have any questions, please ask me or ask at the COI noticeboard, WP:COIN. I will tag the pages you have edited with "connected contributor" and will consider next steps. But in the meantime please cure the breach. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This also goes for the IP address 181.28.240.166 which per this note is the same user. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I do not have a conflict of interest with the doctor. I do not get compensated in any way by his organizations nor do I have any connection to him other than one informal exchange of opinions on a legal matter in 2011. I read the COI policy and cannot find any of what you are referring to. I quote: "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 01:52, 22 October 2014‎ UTC)

what precisely does "We collaborate with the doctor on matters related to patent litigation." mean? Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and would you please explain why almost every single edit you have made to Wikipedia is about him or his work? Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The doctor serves as consultant on pharmaceutical patent litigations and had a specific legal issue outside of his expertise that he wanted to address and I volunteered my opinion. I edit his entries because I took much interest in his work ever since the consultation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS AND INDENT YOUR COMMENTS. THESE ARE BASIC PROTOCOL ON WIKIPEDIA. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation strains credibility. At best you have a problem with WP:ADVOCACY and you are most definitely a single purpose account. Please read WP:SPA which describes the problems with that. Your edits are truly non--neutral and promotional. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also explain the context, such that you knew that he was involved in patent litigation and had a problem and had the opportunity to offer your opinon. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not disclose any aspect of the patent litigation case. He clearly needed help with a legal issue and I opined on the matter in an informal setting outside the Court. It has never been my intent to promote anybody and I do not advocate for the doctor's research in any way. I just report facts concerning the doctor's research and scientific profile as I know them and in the relevant Wikipedia context. I meant to write also about certain legal matters on patent litigation and may do so in the forthcoming weeks. Sorry for not being familiar with the enormus corpus of Wikipedia legalities or bylaws.

of course i am not asking you to disclose anything about the patent litigation per se - but your response makes it all the more clear that you have a personal or professional relationship with Fernandez, or you would not know that he needed assistance, since patent litigation is indeed confidential. What I am asking, is what is that personal or professional relationship? Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have no personal/professional relationship with the doctor. He is a consultant in pharmaceutical patent litigations. Outside the Court he expressed frustration (anxiety?) over a legal issue that lies outside of his expertise. I volunteered an opinion out of my own volition. To help, I learned about his work and found it quite fascinating and have taken an interest in it. What I reported in Wikipedia is fair and balanced and verifiable to the best of my understanding. I have logged in when I happened to remember my password and sometimes I have not. Thus, there are two accounts attached to my name and I have confirmed that fact in the talk section of the articles. If I need to do so elsewhere, please advice, as I am not familiar with Wikipedia regulations.

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/arifer, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have no personal/professional relationship with the doctor. He is a consultant in pharmaceutical patent litigations. Outside the Court he expressed frustration (anxiety?) over a legal issue that lies outside of his expertise. I volunteered an opinion out of my own volition. To help, I learned about his work and found it quite fascinating and have taken an interest in it. What I reported in Wikipedia is fair and balanced and verifiable to the best of my understanding. I have logged in when I happened to remember my password and sometimes I have not. Thus, there are two accounts attached to my name and I have confirmed that fact in the talk section of the articles. If I need to do so elsewhere, please advice, as I am not familiar with Wikipedia regulations.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is clear that you are here not to contribute to building the encyclopedia, but to promote a particular person and his work, and that you have no interest in accepting consensus and guidelines. It is also, as you know, considered probable that this is a sockpuppet account, created to evade blocks on other accounts, which, if true, is in itself sufficient grounds for blocking this account. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haydee Belinky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I appeal this block. First, as I have stated, I have no personal or professional relationship with the subject. I learned about the subject and took interest in his work after I became acquainted with his consultancy work in a patent litigation case in 2011, where I volunteered an opinion outside the Court. An accusation of sock puppetry based on the fact that the subject and I live part of the time in Buenos Aires, a city of 15 million people, seems unfair. I don’t even know if we ever overlap. I thought the subject and his work met the notability criteria demanded by Wikipedia to be included in its pages. The subject’s work has been reviewed in some major venues like: Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110518/full/news.2011.294.html Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/complicated-protein-interactions-evolved-to-stave-off-mutations/ Nature Medicine: http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v7/n2/full/nrd2524.html Commissioned review by Harvard professor George Demetri: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2096446/ Chemistry World/Royal Society of Chemistry: http://www.rsc.org/images/ProteinProteinInteractions%20-%20A%20Sticky%20End_tcm18-205395.pdf and many others. As for the notability of Ariel Fernandez himself, it appears to be established in the Talk on his Wikipedia article. I simply was not able to find any regulation forbidding me to contribute with a neutral objective tone to Wikipedia by writing articles on a subject and his work that meet the notability criteria. The tone I adopted is neutral and objective and the information I presented is thoroughly verifiable. There is no promotional intent that I can see in the articles contributed. If I infringed some specific regulation, please let me know.

Decline reason:

You have been blocked "because it is clear that you are here not to contribute to building the encyclopedia, but to promote a particular person and his work", and your unblock request seems to confirm this is correct. In this context, I am declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

who ever looks at this, please also see Talk:Ariel_Fernandez#response_by_.22ariel_fernandez.22 and the thread right below it, Talk:Ariel_Fernandez#Request_for_article_removal. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]