User talk:DrBobSears

Hello, DrBobSears. You have new messages at JSpung's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2013[edit]

Hello, DrBobSears. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Robert Sears (physician), 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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
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.

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. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. You can ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm JSpung. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Robert Sears (physician) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JSpung (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JSpung - The bias in this article is extremely one-sided. It is clearly written by people who hate me. Is there a way to simply take the page down, and prevent people from creating one about me using my name? Or can we lock the page so that only people I or you approve can edit it? If you read it, the bias is very clear. What's my remedy? {{Talkback|"DrBobSears"} — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBobSears (talk • contribs) 02:30, February 4, 2015‎ (UTC)

Please see my response on my talk page, and the responses from other editors below. JSpung (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles don't have "approved" editors. You can remove factual errors. Bias needs to be discussed on the talk page - Talk:Robert Sears (physician). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sears, you have been warned above that because of your WP:Conflict of interest (read that page!!!), you must be very careful about trying to edit the article. What you did is the kind of thing which can get you blocked, so don't do it again. Whitewash attempts, if discovered by a journalist, may end up as content in the article. You wouldn't want that to happen.

The content is properly sourced and accurately reproduces the spirit and content of the sources. If you don't want such things being documented, then don't do them. There is no possibility of removing the article, locking it down, or only allowing you or any of your representatives or fans from turning it into a sales brochure. (If it gets locked, it will be to prevent you from editing it.) Our NPOV policy requires that significant sides of a controversy and negative POV are included if they are found in reliable sources. More content will be added, including your response to Dr. Lipson.

While editors obviously have their own POV and thoughts, nobody hates you. That is not what drives our editing. Your actions and POV are controversial and well-documented, and that's what we do here. We tell the whole story, without whitewashing. We're documenting your life, career, and fate. If you act wisely and adopt scientifically defensible POV, you will no doubt fare better. We cannot control what is written about you in the real world, but we must document it, the good and the bad.

You should read this essay: WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You have made yourself a notable person, and are profiting from it. That notability comes with a price. In your case it may be a bitter pill to swallow. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangiger, you are not helping and your words are tinged with bad faith accusations and completely ignores that very serious and unsupported accusations were being used to maliciously attack the subject's character. Then you restored the offending material after its removal by another editor and an administrator. This comment: " We're documenting your life, career, and fate. If you act wisely and adopt scientifically defensible POV, you will no doubt fare better." is a disgraceful comment. Cue the hand wringing villain because this reads as a threat. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

You need to know a couple of things to save you grief on Wikipedia. First, Wikipedia is a reality-based project that relies on reliable independent sources, and in matters of medicine and science we judge those sources by orthodox criteria. Put simply, as a prominent anti-vaccinationist who has been identified in the media by name as holding some responsibility for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease, you're not going to like our article on you. If you did, we would be violating policy.

However, it is important to us to be accurate. We actively encourage you to identify any errors of fact. This means: sources we quote inaccurately, sources which are subsequently corrected and we do not reflect the correction, and so on. You should do this via the Talk page (editing your own article on Wikipedia does not reflect well on you, people have been attacked in the press for this, and we counsel strongly against it). Pleas be specific and help others by providing links and other evidence to support corrections. The easier a request is to understand and action, the more likely it is to get done. Do read our biography policy for further guidance. You can email the foundation, you'll get a standard response which I wrote, so you can save time by just asking me.

Final point: if you make any comment that sounds even slightly like a legal threat, you will be banned. So please don't.

Wikipedia is a community project, there are lots of editors of all shades of opinion. We strive to be accurate and honest, and we also strive to be open and honest in dealings with article subjects, however controversial. Ask for help if you need it. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, agree with Guy's suggestions that you point out factual errors either here or even better on the article talk page. I removed some content that seemed off topic for the article and plan to go line by line to check each source. Also, it is helpful if you can point out other references that are the media that do the best at stating what you consider an accurate portrayal of your view. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 23:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to assist as well. Some of the material in the article was reprehensible and an outright attack on your character. What passes for today's media is no better than yellow journalism. Make a rational statement and most of the issues can be put into context or addressed. The outlandish claim you were responsible for an "epidemic" sourced to some third-rate source was improper - Wikipedia editors can and do add sources as they see them, but most stop at verifiability instead of veracity. There are editors with high standards here and we volunteers do what we can because we must. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, BLP also applies to other editors, and your statement is totally false. You need better reading comprehension. Nowhere in the article does it state that Sears was responsible for an epidemic. There are sources which do say that, but they were not used. It is a fact, admitted by Sears himself in one of the sources, that the index patient was his patient, and that is what the article says. I would never threaten you with legal action for your libelous statement, but we do have policies against such serious and false accusations against another editor, and we have sanctions as well. Be more careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time trying to deescalate this: Sears was not the only doctor to see this child. Parental consent is needed for vaccinations. In his book, Sears recommends the MMR vaccine on the normal schedule. DrBobSears claims to be Robert Sears and while we do not have confirmation, (may WP:OTRS could clarify), we are inclined to take the matter seriously. Thank you for your understanding. Cheers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]