User talk:Chilliard4

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Chilliard4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a conflict of interest[edit]

Hi Chilliard4. Based on your efforts to post edit requests about Flexion, it appears that you have some kind of conflict of interest and are trying to respect the COI guidelines, but are not quite sure of what you are doing. I would be happy to help get you oriented if you like. Just reply here. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog- I already put out a conflict of interest statement three weeks ago. Could you please help me on this? Thanks. Chilliard4 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I looked here and at the article talk page and didn't see a disclosure. I have now looked further and found this, at some IP address talk page. So strange.

That is not really what is needed here, at this time. Would you please just reply here, and briefly state your connection with Flexion? We just need to know if you work for them. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog we do not work for Flexion. We are their PR agency and have signed permission from a Flexion representative to update.

Chilliard4 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Continuing... two things. First, you wrote "we". Please be aware that per Wikipedia policy only one person can use an account. If more than one person is using this account, please leave this account with one person, and have the others open their own accounts. Second, per the WP:PAID policy, you are obligated to disclose your employer and the client. There is more that I should inform you about, but what you please reply and state your employer and the client? (It is logistically useful to have it all in one reply -- what we call a "diff"). Once you do we can continue. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog apologies for the incorrect language. I'm confirming there's only one person on this account. My employer is Lazar Partners and Flexion is our client. Thanks. Chilliard4 (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(note the "outdent"!) OK, to finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Chilliard4 - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work for Lazar Partners, a PR company, and am working on improving the article about Flexion Therapeutics, our client. I am receiving consideration for this and am following the WP:PAID policy." would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the Lazar, Flexion, or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like). I put a tag on the article talk page, to get the disclosure done "locally" for you; once you have posted on the your Userpage, the disclosure piece will be done.

You seem to have the rest of this down already, but I will lay it out here, just so you have it.

There are two pieces to managing conflict of interest (including paid editing) in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:Flexion Therapeutics - there is a link at "request corrections or suggest content" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. You can also add a {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I would like to say more about, and I hope you are open to that.)

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Does that all make sense? If not, I would be happy to discuss. And I would like to explain some of the key things about Wikipedia to you, if you are open to that -- namely, the mission of Wikipedia and our strategies for realizing it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog thanks for the detailed info. I've updated my user page to include disclosure and submitted a request edit following the protocol you shared. Please let me know if there's any update. Thanks! Chilliard4 (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks. OK, just two more things and I will stop haranguing you :).

First, if you are not aware of it, you might want to make the other folks at Lazar aware of WP:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, which you all can sign on to if you like. The organizer of that is User:WWB Too, whom I just pinged and will likely show up and say "hi" soon.

Second, a last thing for you to read -- User:Jytdog/How, which is my as-brief-as-possible orientation to the mission of Wikipedia and the strategies we use to realize it. We really do aim to be a knowledge resource. I understand that companies want to put their messages out via Wikipedia but that is not what we are here for. Anyway, I look forward to working with you over at the Flexion page. Thanks for talking through all this stuff. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I heard my name... thanks for the ping, Jytdog, and welcome to Wikipedia, Chilliard4. I'd be very happy to fill you in on the PR firm statement that Jytdog has linked to, and I could give you some background on how to work well with the Wikipedia community, if you like. You can reach me on my talk page, or I'm also accessible via email—visit my page, then look for "Email this user" in the left-hand sidebar. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWB Too, here are the articles I found with similar language for the update. Flexion is a specialty pharma company focused on musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis.^[1] Flexion Therapeutics (NASDAQ:FLXN) is a Burlington, Massachusetts based emerging biopharmaceutical company that is making novel, local therapies for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. ^[2] Please let me know if they would work. Thanks. Chilliard4 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are not putting your marketing material in Wikipedia. Please stop trying to do that, and please know that there is no way that any experienced paid editor will add corporate marketing material to Wikipedia for another one - they know that they would be indefinitely blocked, and swiftly. Please don't even go there. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Jytdog is right: I can't be the person to give thumbs-up to anything. Chilliard, it might be more helpful not just to say what specific language you'd like to see included, but to describe what specific points you are trying to make with the entry. There may be a more encyclopedic way to go about it. I'm honestly not certain what from your desired language as presented above is a meaningful addition to the existing entry. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we are so sorry for any missteps on our part. We had received a separate email from WWB Too advising us to find news articles with similar language and to include those citations. This is why we provided outside articles from external journalists mimicking the language. We sincerely apologize if this was incorrect.

We really appreciate your help in moving forward with this. There is some information in the page that is no longer correct, and we just want to make sure that the most factual, up-to-date, nonbiased information is on the page. We’d like see if it is possible to have the following language reviewed:

As of May 2012 Flexion was developing three new drug candidates:

• FX005 is a sustained release, intra-articular p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (p38 MAP) inhibitor,[3][4]

• FX007 is a sustained release, intra-articular TrkA receptor antagonist.[5]

The company is actually no longer pursuing those programs, as verified by the FORM 10-K report was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Please see page 10 at this link: ^[3] This states: “As previously reported, Flexion discontinued the internal development of FX007 for post- operative pain and FX005 for the treatment of end-stage OA patients.” Could you please let us know if this FORM 10-K is appropriate back up to support the update to which drug candidates the company is currently pursuing?

Once again, we are extremely sorry for any confusion that we caused in providing the news articles. This is our first time working with updating Wikipedia information and we are truly grateful you are taking the time to show us around. We understand your mission of making sure this information is not promotional or branded and will work with you in any way necessary to help meet that goal while providing the most factual information. ::::::: Please let us know of anything else you need to proceed. Thanks so much! Chilliard4 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts: the 10-K seems an appropriate source for modifying (if not altogether removing) mention of the two drug candidates no longer under development. I don't think it's sufficient for adding new information, since a 10-K is a WP:PRIMARY source, but for verifying that currently included information is not current, that should be sufficient. Jytdog?

Meanwhile, I am starting to come around on the idea that some of these phrases suggested for the introductory section may in fact be appropriate. What might sound like promotional language or jargon to our non-medical ears I now find are in common use in the medical field, i.e. "novel therapies" (Google search) and "local therapies" (Google search). To that end, Jytdog, I'd be interested to know if there are some phrases in Chilliard's request you might be willing to consider.

Finally: Chilliard, I've edited your comment above to remove my email address, and replaced it with my username. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed common-as-dirt corporate marketing speak. Which is what i have been saying. I'll look at the stuff based on the annual report. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we hope everything is well on your end. We just wanted to round back and see if you had an update after looking at the annual report. We actually have a new update for Flexion’s product pipeline; the company has also announced a new pipeline candidate, FX101. A supporting document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is located here as a source to back up this statement: http://ir.flexiontherapeutics.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-17-224815&CIK=1419600. We would still like to remove the information pertaining to FX005 and FX007 and keep Zilretta (FX006), as verified by the annual report.

Please let us know if removing FX005 and FX007 is still feasible and if FX101 can be added and if there are any other materials we can provide to help you in the process. We look forward to hearing from you! Thanks.

References

Chilliard4 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before I address the other stuff, who is "we"? Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, when working at an agency, it’s a habit to refer to the team dynamic and use the term “we” in written communications. Confirming it is just myself on this account.Chilliard4 (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying. With regard to specific content at the article, please feel free to propose content there. Please keep in mind that a) our goal is to educate the public; b) the best sources are independent. There is an active trade publication industry around the biotech industry (fierce biotech/pharma, pink sheets, in vivo, etc) and it should rarely be necessary to rely on press releases or SEC filings. Major SEC filings (annual/quarterly reports) are better than press releases. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your assistance. I’ve made those changes directly in the article, as directed, backed up with trade sources The Fly and Street Insider. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do to help update. I really appreciate all of your help with this process. Chilliard4 (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and you shouldn't have done that. Do not edit the article directly! Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies – I must have misunderstood, I thought you meant to edit in the article? What is the best way to provide the sources and updated content otherwise, just here in the Talk space? I’m sorry for the confusion.” Chilliard4 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a ton of my time to try to educate you how this place works. My responses in the future will be very brief. Everything you need is written above. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?StoryID=450519&full=1

[2] ttps://seekingalpha.com/article/4049315-flexion-therapeutics-novel-knee-osteoarthritis-therapy-upcoming-catalyst

[3] ttp://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-2IAS8C/3242954162x0xS1564590-17-4006/1419600/filing.pdf.

[1]

[2]

[3]