User talk:Camrontucker

Welcome!

Hello, Camrontucker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Camrontucker, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! GregJackP (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Camrontucker[edit]

A tag has been placed on Camrontucker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GregJackP (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Welcome, again. What you created was an encyclopedia article - your actual user page is User:Camrontucker. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your contribution to the article on Protandim. The article had developed in rather piece-meal manner so I think a complete rewrite of the article is not necessarily a bad idea.

When I started working on the article, it was very brief and superficial and I felt it was very dismissive of significant results of competent research studies. I think editors were questioning the quality of the studies without even having bothered to look at the reports. I added all links to three of the studies and made an effort to explain the results.

While it is true that the human study was not a double-blind placebo controlled protocol, the results of the before-and-after-style protocol were statistically significant and appropriate for a preliminary evaluation of effects on humans. I briefly explained the concepts of statistical significance and linear regression because people were questioning the results. In a less controversial context, results of studies by professional scientists are accepted without comment, but in this case it seemed necessary to report p values and briefly explain their significance.

On the downside, the links to on-line content of Protandim skeptics such as Harriet Hall and Tony Campbell should not have been removed. The link to an unpublished observational study on Duchene's muscular dystrophy should not have been deleted either. Also, description of pending research activity should not be omitted nor a direct link to the current quarterly SEC report of Lifevantage. A lot of wikipedia articles have a section entitled "Controversy". Perhaps that would be a good approach. The current research strongly indicates that this formula modifies NRF2, the master control switch of anti-oxidant response at the cellular level. This not only deserves further study, but it also requires further study if a lot of consumers are trying the product. I do not think that there would be unanimous consensus among all doctors and scientists that there may not be unknown issues involved in doing this or that everybody should feel free to use this product on a long term basis. The Wikipedia article should not come across as an endorsement of this product.(Entropy7 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]