Talk:Ali Shilatifard

COI template box removal

I am seeking a consensus on the content of Ali Shilatifard article. A COI template box has been placed by Natureium, Nomoskedasticity, 2600:1017:b020:c6d5:6041:ade7:352f:5803, and ScrapIronIV all within a few hours. I have reached out to Natureium for a consensus, however, no response. I also made attempts to clean up the article by removing some of the information even though objective. Although messages have been sent by these editors stating that a consensus needs to be reached before the box can be removed, no suggestions or talk has occurred. I am seeking consensus here. Please provide specific information how you would like to see it changed. Please note that this BLP is identical to several other scientists' Wiki pages. I am seeking an honest and fair resolution to this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia007 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would start the conversation by identifying your connection to the subject. Additionally, you should note that not everyone has added it - they have merely restored it after you removed it. Maintenance templates do not get removed until the underlying issues are addressed. Scr★pIron^IV 20:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Natureium (talk

— contribs) (Undid revision 771463434 by Magnolia007 (talk) not necessarily major. this section is also far too long.)

Again, you appear to be making a personal judgment and injecting your opinion rather than maintaining a neutral point of view. Upon what criteria are you judging that these discoveries are “not necessarily major,” and that “this section is far too long,”? This is your personal opinion. Renaming it to “Published Research” is also inaccurate, because the list is not a complete list of Dr. Shilatifard’s published research. Therefore, your editing is not very well thought out. Major Discoveries seems neutral in that the published manuscripts listed are discoveries recognized by highly respected, peer-reviewed journals. Other major research groups have cited them. It is fair and unbiased to say that they are Dr. Shilatifard’s major discoveries. Many other scientists’ Wiki pages have the subtitle “Major Discoveries”.

The examples of your editing that I provided above demonstrate one of Wiki’s warning of having a COI. You appear to be making edits that are influenced by your personal opinion.

“Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. “

I suggest that you seriously consider your potential COI with this article before making further edits. If you continue to make subjective edits that are unsubstantiated, I will need to report you to a Wiki administrator.

Oh, that was your attempt for a consensus? I don't respond to insults posted on my talk page. Natureium (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Natureium, you did respond. You deleted the talk conversation from your talk page and said what a joke. This is not helpful in trying to resolve this. I think the tone overall is being misinterpreted and we should work towards resolving this issue. Please provide specific points you would like changed in the article to clean it up. I attempted to cut out several pieces (although they were objective) that were replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia007 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, to resolve this, your fellow Wikipedia editors would like to know your connection to the subject of this article. This is the crux of the matter, and must be disclosed. Scr★pIron^IV 20:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

ScrapIron, my connection to the subject is irrelevant. Specific points need to be described as to why there is concern of a COI. It is a short article. A user should very easily be able to provide evidence that concerns them about the information in the article. Natureium has made subjective edits. It would be helpful to know their connection to the subject over mine. My contributions have all been factual and scientific. When evaluating the edits, Natureium removed notable awards that are listed; and gave subjective opinions such as "not necessarily major". Can you please provide evidence of any of my contributions that are subjective and warrant being considered a COI? We can then move forward to modify them and remove the box. Thank you for your attention in helping to reach a fair consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia007 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. The concern as to why you might have a COI is because your entire edit history consists of you making changes to this article that border on promotional. Your claims that everything you add are neutral are patently false. Secondly, having a COI does NOT mean having a bias, or else you would definitely have a COI.

Now, are you going to answer, or not? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm interested in adding making some changes to this page (neutralizing language and adding some citations. I do have a few questions: --Style... In looking around, there doesn't seem to be much use of honorifics in entries (e.g., Dr.) I just wanted to make sure that I was OK to remove any instances. --Structure... in looking at like pages (living biochemists), there is not any uniform structure (I'm looking at entries like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Belcher; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_E._Clements; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerard_Hurwitz). Is that a goal? Or rather, is it a realistic goal?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batfran76 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. I didn't see any response, so I'll just proceed the best I can. I appreciate any and all feedback. Batfran76 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)