Bu11man7

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Whispering was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Bu11man7/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering 01:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Bu11man7, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Whispering 01:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Bu11man7/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Methylated Septin 9 DNA blood test has been accepted

Methylated Septin 9 DNA blood test, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

 — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

http://www.epiprocolon.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/MKT_0026_Physician_messaging_and_brochure_rev5.pdf

The brochure in question was written by me - and governed by the FDA and Epigenomics regulatory. One cannot infringe on one's own material. The FDA-approved content can only be minimally changed without penalty. Thus, I correctly repurposed the information as to not changed the integrity of the FDA-approved content.

The Methylated Septin 9 blood test page provides a technical and commercial application of a science, backed by research. The page in question is well referenced and should provide a value to a potential reader.

Am happy to discuss the areas of concern or please reinstate this page.

The brochure in question shows a copyright belonging to Epigenomics. Thus, only a representative (i.e., employee) of Epigenomics can make the release that Wikipedia requires—and you've already asserted that you are not an employee of Epigenomics.

Further, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or a source of medical advice. Article text can (and will!) be edited frequently; it should be written for lay readers, not medical professionals. If the text is FDA-approved, it is inappropriate to place it in Wikipedia. The readers would be better served by a paraphrase on the key information and a link to further reading, such as the brochure. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The brochure is NOT an appropriate source per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

C. Fred - I am indeed a representative of Epigenomics. As stated above, I wrote the brochure in question. If I need to make it available, I can do this. Doc James - If the brochure, that you introduced as infringed upon is not an appropriate source. I am sure the Instructions for Use on the FDA website (that was linked to the Methylated Septin 9 page) should suffice. Epigenomics has painstakingly attempted to make them similar if not identical. Thus, the conundrum created with an FDA-approved product with the accusation of plagiarization.

• The issue is not plagiarism, but copyright - the issues are related but separate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Unblock Account

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).

Bu11man7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

According to DocJames, I was blocked for repurposing content from an Epi proColon brochure. Page in question is Methylated Septin 9 DNA Blood Test

First, I created the Epi proColon brochure and have permissions to repurpose on websites, brochures, digital/social media. All repurposes of this content, including this submitted Wikipedia page was reviewed robustly by corporate regulatory affairs.

Although I have no specifics regarding the areas of concern - I can only conjecture the area regarding the Intended Use Statements, the clinical study data, and the target patient population. All of these, including the referenced brochure are FDA-approved.

Because they are FDA-approved, there are minimal changes that can be made without submission. During the regulatory affairs process, RA/QA ensures the content is concise and consistent between the websites, brochures, and now Wikipedia pages.

Am confident is a similar comparison was made to Multitarget stool DNA screening test and the Cologuard (FDA-approved product), similar redundancies would exist. Allomap, Oncotype Dx, Oncotype Dx Colon Cancer are all non-FDA products which also have redundant information.

I am not a paid editor. I consider myself a subject matter expert on biotechnology, diagnostics, and colorectal cancer

I wish to abide by the Wikipedia rules as well as abide by FDA guidelines. The page I created is a single place on the internet where a user can understand the technology, gain knowledge of the clinical studies, and acceptance by the societies/FDA. The page is very well referenced and educational to the reader.

Should DocJames wish to provide specifics regarding his claim, I am happy to make modifications.

Thank you for the consideration to unblock my account.

Feedback: DocJames should have had a dialogue with me to understand where repurposing is critical, before blocking me with no warning, and then labeling me a 'paid editor' without cause. I feel his actions where heavy handed and ill willed.

Decline reason:

Per Doc James, below. You have not addressed your conflict of interest and how you will edit in relation to it (as required by WP:COI), and you have not adequately addressed the copyright problems - Wikipedia does not allow material (even your own) to be used unless it has been released under a copyright licence at least as free as CC BY-SA (which means it can then be used/modified by anyone else for any purpose, providing it is attributed). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2017 (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.

You have not disclosed your connection to the product in question nor your position within the company in question. And you have not provided proper copyright release to the material in question. A number of us here are well aware of FDA regulations. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There has also been misrepresentation of the position of the USPSTF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--Any-body willing to grant a unblock, shall such a request happen, contact me and/or DocJames prior to the execution.Thank you!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)