User talk:David notMD/Archive 2

Monomelic amyotrophy

Thank you for reviewing the MMA article. This is starting to feel like the family axe. Yup, been in the family since 1840. Replaced the handle four times and the head twice. ... By the time this article is finished it might not even have the same title. Anyway...

When it becomes time to transfer MMA from my Sandbox to the main page I'll shift the "Further Reading" to MMA Talk, one of the few things left from how it was when I started this 3 weeks ago (feels like 20 weeks). You've flagged =Symptoms= as needing citations. I don't know where the original author got the line about fingers and palm, one of the few lines left from before I started; unfortunately, while symptoms mentioned have several sources a lot of symptom descriptions are buried in obtuse terminology and it is a grind to rephrase in simpler terms. I'll work on that and on cleaning up a couple of other citations and then insert it in place of the current version tomorrow. Thanks again for your help. GeeBee60 (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nina Cuso

Please watch the whole Greg Bernard show...its an entire interview OHARE415...sorry I dint know where else to write on your page. But please edit this page nicely and not assume. Look at the name below it says Nina Cuso and if you actually watch it 10 minutes of an interview. Peace and love. But, please be more careful.

Ohare415 - I watched the entire episode. He is interviewing Gee Powell. Nowhere did I see or hear mention of NC. If GB has done an interview of NC, then please fix the reference.

P.S. The way to reach someone on their Talk is to start a New section (see top menu bar). That creates content at the end (bottom) of their page. And sign by typing four of ~ David notMD (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bernard did conduct an interview with Nina, but the hyperlink you provided in the reference is to the wrong Bernard episode. And regardless, interviews with the person being written about are not considered acceptable as content for Wikipedia articles. David notMD (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Article subsequently went through AfD and was deleted.David notMD (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing Assabet Woolen Mill from Maynard, Massachusetts page, Sites of Interest Section

Hi David notMD, I see you removed my addition of the Assabet Woolen Mill to Maynard, Massachusetts' Sites of Interest because it was already mentioned in the entry. Why can it not remain a site of interest? It is very much a site of interest in the town.

Thanks, GG --Greta Glee (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

For many reasons. 1) Of greatest importance, almost all of what you added is already covered in the history section of the article. There is no need to repeat the history. If there is any merit in describing it as a site of interest is should be as it is now, without history. 2) Although widely believed as true, there is no published confirmation that the mill made cloth for uniforms or blankets during the Civil War. Yes, it states that in the History section, but should be removed from there unless it can be substantiated. 3) Post wool, tenants were not engineers; tenants were companies that may have or not had engineers as employees. 4) Describing "now-global employment titan" Monster is inappropriate promotion, especially for an ex-tenant. 5) The mill complex is not a cultural landmark (the Town of Maynard has not even designated it as historic). 6) There is no apartment space; tenants are industry, office and one restaurant. David notMD (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback

Hi David. I noticed you’ve reverted a number of my edits. I read your edit summaries and I understand what you’re saying. I will take your notes into consideration in my future edits, although I will be focusing mostly on fighting vandalism. Mosstacker (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Protecting Wikipedia from vandalism is an admirable cause, but I hope that you also find topics for which your personal expertise allows you to make content contributions. Most of my editing has been in health-related topics, but with excursions into Massachusetts history and observations on nature (insects, birds, plants...). My big projects have been raising articles to Good Article status. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Chromium FAC

@David notMD: Hey David, could you possibly edit that last bit you added? Specifically "Australia and New Zealand consider chromium to be an essential nutrient, with an adult AI of 35 μg/day for men, 25 μg/day for women pregnancy 30 μg/day and lactation 45 μg/day. A UL has not been set.[73] India considers chromium to be an essential nutrient, with an adult recommended intake of 33 μg/day.[74] Japan considers chromium to be an essential nutrient, with an adult AI of 10 μg/day, same for women who are pregnant or lactating, no UL.[75] " The italics sound repetitive and could probably be merged, and the bold could be clarified a bit better. I don't want to be the one to do it, because you found and interpreted the sources for this bit. The information is accurate, but just worded confusingly. I don't believe I can fix it AND stay scientifically accurate, which is why I was asking you. Sorry, and thanks. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what I said, because I worded it poorly. When you say that a UL has not been set, I know that a UL has not been set. It just interrupts the flow of the passage in my opinion, because none of the other countries have ULs set. And there are a lot of commas; some phrases could be combined. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin: I would prefer to keep it as simple declarative sentences, each dealing with AI and UL for that country. (India only country among the examples without a UL.) Trying to reduce the repetition would mean that when readers get to second half of the content - list of various AIs and ULs - they would have to repeatedly glance back to the first half to see which country applied. David notMD (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Okay, that is true, I see what you mean. Really my biggest problem was with that second bolded phrase, the "same for women who are pregnant or lactating, no UL". It just doesn't sound right... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to separate sentence: "A UL has not been set." David notMD (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for the edit! What I did was I changed "with an adult AI of 10 μg/day, same for women who are pregnant or lactating" into "with an AI of 10 μg/day for adults and women specifically who are pregnant or lactating." That way, instead of saying. "This fact is true for these parameters, same for this fact with the same parameters", the article instead reads, "These two facts are true for these parameters" I also added some connecting words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtopianPoyzin (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion your wording changes made the sentences worse, so I changed them to something else. How about we work on content for now, leave wordsmithing recommendations for the FA reviewer? David notMD (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Hey David, just came back to inform you that the link to India's dietary recommendations is broken (Reference 76 at the time being). But now that I'm here, I guess we could compromise on the wording you inserted. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin: The India link works if clicked on Archive. David notMD (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't considered following the archive link. Sorry about that! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Hey David! I've been doing my best to help out around the Chromium article by tidying up and adding more content to the lead, and while adding a citation, I suddenly became unsure of how to properly do so; I just wanted to ask what the best way to reference a pdf is. I found a very insightful pdf from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and because it was a pdf of book pages, should I site it as a book or a website? It is currently placed as a website citation to tide it over, but I saw that you have been doing a lot of work on the ref repairs, and was hoping you could help me out. As a new editor on wikipedia, I am not familiar with that many citation regulations. I could really use guidance with citations in general, but I'm trying not to ask too much of you... Any tips in general would be appreciated though! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin: Good question. I have not done any FAs, but in doing GAs, I've had reviewers happy with the citation template I use and other not. Take a look at Category:Citation templates for an extended discussion. At a practical level, what I recommend is https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi for generating citations for journal articles. For books, I've used a book format and within it identified which pages. Even for journal refs, I've had reviewers write that they want page numbers in full (1419-1428 rather than 1419-28) and date= showing only year. not month and year. Basically, be consistent, and wait for the reviewer of the FA nomination tell you what you did wrong. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

ref fixing

Hi David You change all the first name to short forms. That I think is not required for FAC.

I liked the full name, because it makes searching a little easier especially for the Smith and Müller type of names. --Stone (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies on that (which I have done more of), in attempt for consistent format. For journal articles, search on PMID or DOI gets to articles. I can see how for books, full name could be useful. David notMD (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was going to mention something along these lines too, but Stone did it for me. I'm going to bring the full names back, but leave all of the other edits. A full first name really helps for citation clarity, and I have yet to understand how not providing it is a hindrance. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Finished replacing the first name initial with the actual name when available. If the names were two initials, I left it as you had it. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse replies

Thanks for your involvement in helping new users. Leaving patient and clear replies on the teahouse notice board is a fantastic way to introduce keen users to our policies and guidelines. You are helping not just the people to whom you are replying, but also anyone else who notices them. Thanks again Edaham (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Just Confirming

I saw (If it was you) the other day at the teahouse saying that you forgot your password. Was this you. If it was I am glad you remembered your password. (Welcome Back!) :-). I just want to confirm was it you? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes me. And yes, finally (finally!) found where I had written my newer password. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to hear that you regained access to your account! I would suggest to register an email address to your account, So incase you do forget your password again (Let's hope this never happens) in the future, you can regain access to your account right away. :) Happy Editing! Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Also glad, as Wikipedia has been an enjoyable hobby in my semi-retirement. I did register an email address. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi David notMD you have here for almost 15 years but you don't have any additional tools why don't you request for rollback it will give you an easier tool to revert vandalism.223.223.139.161 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

My primary area of interest is improving articles related to nutrition and dietary supplements. Second, of late, has been stepping in at TeaHouse. At either, if I run across vandalism I try to fix, but do not intend to be a vandalism hunter. Thanks for thinking of me, though. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomnom121: Thank you for informing me on the removed edits! Which page was it? 14 November 2018 PS: I met you at the Teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomnom121 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for informing me on the removed edits on some of the articles I revised! I had no idea anyone would inform me on this. Nomnom121 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Alcohol and Pregnancy

Thanks for helping with this article. I ran out of time to do more yesterday and appreciate that you picked up my slack. This is not a Queen's student, it just popped up in my feed and looked liked it needed some work. Hope that you are well!! JenOttawa (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@JenOttawa: It is one of the articles on the list for Univ Cincinnati students. Some of them have been quite BOLD. I did chunks of deletions and reverts at Diseases of affluence, leaving notes on the students' Talk pages and the article's Talk page. I suspect the teacher of the class does not have much Wikipedia experience, and just let the students loose on a list of articles of their own choosing. David notMD (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. How are things going with the nutrition-related articles? Have you considered trying to publish in WikiJournal of Medicine? I may return to the alcohol and pregnancy article later as well. It is an important article!! JenOttawa (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Although it does not get many page views https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Alcohol_and_pregnancy JenOttawa (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

My Wikipedia projects slowed down a bit (day job). On my list is to get Folate and Vitamin E to Good Article, then perhaps same for Peanut allergy and Soy allergy. Appalled that there are not separate articles for Fish allergy and Shellfish allergy (redirects to Food allergy). I am closing in on retirement from my supplement consulting business, which would allow me to remove my COI statement from my User page. David notMD (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I can help with folate... my MSc research was on folic acid and valproic acid (developmental tox). I am no longer active in the toxicology field, but I can interpret the literature and could definitely try my best to help. I too need to make time for this though. The Queen's course is just wrapping up. I think most students are almost done, except for a couple of articles. Have a great weekend! JenOttawa (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi David, Thank you for your help editing the article about David T. McCoy. I greatly appreciate your edits! Do you think that the flags for neutrality can now be removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meredithlmccoy (talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Responded at your Talk and at article. A reminder, when making a comment on any Talk page, sign by typing four of ~ at the end of your comment. David notMD (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Hi there I am sorry for what i have wrote, it was misunderstanding. I am so ashamed that i wrote bad things about wikipedia but i say sorry for all wikipedian community. Can you guide me as I am a beginner and tell me the secret behind this all award or contribution? Thanks 😭😩 --MeKLT (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Responded at your Talk. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Farrar

Thank you for your edits but a question, and I am not being snarky. You deleted the word support, in the sentence where I describe a hundred as piece of land that can field a fyrd or support 100 families. It now reads a hundred is a piece of land that can field 100 families. That doesn't make sense to me. How does one field a family? A fyrd yes, but a family? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Farrar_(settler)&diff=870888478&oldid=870887164 again I am not being snarky, so it must be my ability to read (possible)Oldperson (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I added the word "support" because without it, I had a hard time making sense of the sentence. As of a minute ago, "support" is still there. If something else is intended, please delate it. David notMD (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A question. Out of curiosity because this site is still a big mystery to me, and the inner workings puzzle me. How did you know that I changed my user name. I checked the history of my user page and there was no indication.Oldperson (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

On the Oldperson Talk page, looking at the older comments, you were signing as Alvanhholmes. Clicking on one of those signatures brings me to the top of the Oldperson Talk page, with a note that it was (Redirected from User:Alvanhholmes). On the other hand, your Contributions at various articles and other editors' Talk pages show you as Oldperson, even if the changes were made back when you were still Alvanhholmes. By the way, you are not obligated to keep content on your own Talk page. Most people create an archive or multiple archives for older content, but a some just delete stuff when it gets old. David notMD (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit on article Mikko S. Niemelä

Hi, I just wanted to discuss your deletion of the patent mentioned in the article. I agree Mikko is a co-inventor (one of the 6 inventors), but I believe this does deserve a mention. Tasneem.tech (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a patent; it's a patent application. I know the process because I am co-inventor on 14 U.S. patents. David notMD (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes you are right, its a patent application, and that is exactly what I mentioned in the citation. Restating my earlier point, I believe this does deserve a mention under the publications section. I'm not trying to disrespect you, I genuinely just want to understand your point of view better.Tasneem.tech (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

My point of view is that patent applications often fail, and as such, should not be listed as accomplishments. And the text I deleted was "He also holds a patent in cryptography." even though the citation accurately presented it as only an application. David notMD (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I really appreciate it.Tasneem.tech (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The Congressional Hearings

I don't think the Teahouse is the appropriate place for this question. Did you see or hear of the Congressional Hearing held with the CEO of Google. One of the ignorant congress critters, and most all are ignorant, dared complain that "liberal" wikipedia would not publish some article probably wrote up by a staffer. Now I am an unabashed progressive, and from what I can tell there is nothing at all liberal about wikipedia it's senior editors and admin. Hard nosed, yes in their effort to strive for excellence and accuracy but not at all liberal. Is WP prepared to fend off such political ideological challenges? I hope so.On the plus side those moronic ideoloogues who currently control the congress of the United States only have about 7 more working days to do damage. The fools were complaining becaue when they googled stuff like Obama care, most of the hits came up negative for "conservatives"Oldperson (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia where we volunteer editors dabble, and Wikipedia that provides the funding and staffing backstage to run the whole thing. But in my direct answer to what you bring up, social media (Facebook etc) are being criticized for allowing hate speech from one side, and then being censors of conservative thought on the other. I cannot see how Wikipedia, with its global distribution of editors and insistence on citations, AND its insistence that paid editing not hide behind a user name when the proposed content is coming from paid staff or public relations firm, can be painted with the same brush. David notMD (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

About your mistakes in your Userpage

Its a message to inform you about some of the mistakes you have committed in your userpage. FIRST-The way you have written the line,"Signed up with Wikipedia in 2006 and am currently between 12k to 15k edits" is un-idiomatic. It should be,"Signed up with Wikipedia in 2006, my current edit count ranges from 12k to 15k. SECOND- In the next line, you have written 'members's' instead of members. THIRD-Another mistake is in the first line of 3rd paragraph. "Many, many year ago" is totally wrong. It should be "many and many a year ago". FOURTH- There should be a comma(,) after 'currently' in the start of the next paragraph. There are many of it, in almost every two lines. Please correct them and replace them with simple words rather than complex words and idioms as this is an Encyclopedia. CheersHardSunBadMoon (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @HardSunBadMoon: frankly, your grasp of English is too uncertain for you to do copyediting, much less advise other editors on their language use. Of the four "mistakes" you point put, only one is an actual error (typo: year rather than years) and your claim that it "should be" "many and many a year ago" is... not quite correct. That is one possible writing, an expression common in Indian English, but a simple change to "years" would be equally (even more) appropriate. "Members's" is a grammatical idiosyncrasy but your suggestion "members" is plain wrong. The other two "mistakes" are perfectly idiomatic and correct, and your first "correction" would introduce several language errors and unidiomatic expressions. Your final sentence makes no sense at all. Apart from all that, it's rather rude and obnoxious to post this kind of thing to another editor's talk page unbidden. --bonadea contributions talk 10:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this was a preferred path - to comment on the Talk page of a user rather than directly make changes to their user page. On occasion I have advised new editors that some personal information is not appropriate for a user page. Given that this is my user page, I get last (only) vote on what belongs on it. David notMD (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it’s nice to have your user page critiqued at all. It’s sort of flattering that someone cared enough to not only check, but also offer advice, albeit complete slosh. Edaham (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes. And I used the moment to replace "who's" with "whose" and to delete that pointed out to me extra "s" from "members's." David notMD (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

a net positive!!!! Edaham (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Many and many a year ago" is an idiomatic expression as referred by Merriam Webster which is the MOST appropriate to use and it isn't Indian english(in fact, there is no such language like Indian English). "Should be" doesn't seems wrong to me in any way as i have saw it written by many famous writers. " Members' " is what i meant to write there. And my preferred sentence at the end is quite easy to understand for people which is the characterstic feature of an Encyclopedia. Other than that, i didn't mean to be rude in any way to david and just tried to spot out the errors while going through his userpage. But still, i apologize for any behaviour that may have looked unappropriate to David notMD, Edaham and Bonadea. Tagged you all to just let know, sorry for any disturbance. RegardsHardSunBadMoon (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Not to worry, what David lacks in obscure knowledge concerning your particular preferences in phraseology, he more than makes up for in patience and the general milk of human kindness; the latter being a health supplement and falling within his particular area of expertise Edaham (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

in fact, there is no such language like Indian English There certainly is such a thing as Indian English :-) It is not a different language, but it is a discrete variety, with more speakers than most other varieties. (You might be interested to know that there is even a movement to make Indian English a scheduled language, though I have no idea how likely that is to happen.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Red User names

What is with the plethora of Red User names I see these days. They don't have user pages, but they have user names. I understand that anyone can edit wikipedia, but don't they have to have created a user page first. Or if not then how do they sign with a user name without a user page? ThanksOldperson (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly that. A person can register a User name and put nothing on the User page = red. And they can sign comments, have a Talk page, and a contributions link without ever creating a User page. Even possible to have a User page, and then decide to blank it, turning it red. Sometimes newbies extend huge effort on their User page, and barely edit articles. Others, other way around. David notMD (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you so much! Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Submission message

Hi David many thanks for your message. To confirm this is the only account being used as my previous accounts were blocked due to their name. I have no direct connection with the person discussed or financial incentives. I'm new to wiki - it's a bit overwhelming to be honest but I am hoping to make a useful contribution and your help and advice is much welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammareditorialfan (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you put a disclaimer on your User page. Otherwise, editors (like me) will wonder if your reason for creating the draft article about AK is because you have an unpaid or paid connection. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Phil Friendly Trio

Hello David notMD. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Phil Friendly Trio, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

SLEEP DOCTOR

Thank you for your medically licensed professional opinion! What does the Red Bull page show on there wikipedia page? I used it as an example as I copied and mimicked to display the snoooze brand in the most informative and genuine way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleyraz (talk • contribs) 20:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

First, I am not a MD. Hence my User name. Second, articles are not BY companies, they are ABOUT companies, and people employed by, paid by, involved with, are strongly advised not to contribute to articles. As you have a conflict of interest, if you try again, declare such. Third, pointing out another article as an example often leads to that article's shortfalls being, addressed, not the article you are editing being allowed to mimic. Lastly, what was needed as references were independently written articles about the company, not what the company says about itself. Uber lastly, I was not the one who activated the Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Good evening!

Good evening! I've just found a fresh article on the role of vitamins in autism spectrum disorders that looks like a review, although there is no word "review" in it, and it says that folinic acid might be helpful in autism. It includes a paragraph reviewing some studies\trials and a short "might improve" conclusion:

Cerebral folate deficiency is a disorder in which the concentrations of folate are low in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) but normal in the blood. Treatment with folate has normalized the CSF folate and improved the neurological manifestations (Ramaekers et al. 2002; Ramaekers et al. 2005, Frye et al. 2018). Many studies have demonstrated that patients with ASD usually had a folate deficiency, which was improved after treatment with folinic acid (Moretti et al., 2005; Ramaekers et al. 2005; Ramaekers et al. 2007; Moretti et al. 2008; Frye and Rossignol 2014). However, a study revealed no evidence for an association between early folic acid supplements for reduced risk of ASD in offspring of women compared with women with no supplement use in the same period (Virk et al. 2016). The most recent randomized, double-blind placebocontrolled trial (Frye et al. 2018) on patients with nonsyndromic ASD treatment with high-dose folinic acid for 3 months resulted in improvement in verbal communication as compared with placebo (Frye et al. 2018). Another study revealed that folate receptor α (FRα) autoantibodies (FRAAs) are common in ASD patients. The binding of FRAAs to the FRα could disrupt transport of folate across the blood-brain barrier (Frye et al. 2017). On the other hand, the overexpression of FRα in the early fetal thyroid indicates that maternal FRAAs during fetal and neonatal exposure could affect thyroid development and may contribute to the ASD pathology (Frye et al. 2017).

In conclusion, various studies showed some evidence on the treatment with folinic acid might improve the autistic symptoms and the effect of the periconceptional use of prenatal vitamins.

Here is the link to the paper, it is in the Journal of Molecular Neuroscience:

• The Role of Vitamins in Autism Spectrum Disorder: What Do We Know?. (Bjorklund et al., Journal of Molecular Neuroscence, 2019)

Considering your interest in keeping cerebral folate deficiency well-balanced, would you consider this article a good secondary source? Would it be okay to include this "might improve" in the article, or is the source not up to scratch, in your opinion? I'll paste the quote now on the discussion page at Cerebral folate deficiency, and I would be grateful for your opinion. --CopperKettle 18:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Answered at the CFD Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I've just watched a video - and I recalled you. I wonder - as a specialist, would you consider this questionable? ---CopperKettle 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A PubMed search on Rucklidge JJ (the Ted Talk presenter), turns up many articles on vitamins + minerals and ADHD, depression, stress disorders.... Where I have a problem with the research is that the trials use a product EMPowerplus (devel by Rucklidge?) which contains 36 nutrients. See full text of 26682999. If there truly are benefits - and many of the trials are small, some without placebo control - then, which nutrients are responsible? Are the amounts - higher than RDAs - essential to the results? David notMD (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And do you think, for instance, that Magnesium and depression merits an article? I've been reading papers on Zinc and depression, and there seems to be more grounds for an article (meta-analyses and reviews). I'm thinking of starting an article in the future, but wouldn't it be deleted? --CopperKettle 19:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I searched PubMed on magnesium depression, limiting the search to meta-analyses and systematic analyses. More than a half dozen were newer than Derom 2013. The gist of the conclusions was 'We're not sure." IMO, this Stub should be deleted and any content on the topic become part of Magnesium in biology. David notMD (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

For zinc x depression, less literature than for magnesium. See Li Z. PMID 28189077. David notMD (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Examine.com cites 4 studies and concludes that zinc supplementation has shown a benefit in treatment-resistant depression, and in several papers I've come across mentions that depression\zinc evidence is considered strong. ---CopperKettle 03:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

For Zinc there is no separate Zinc in biology article but there is Zinc deficiency. The latter addresses - incompletely - the questions of zinc and mental function. The common fallacy in nutrition and health writings, is that if a deficiency increases the risk of a condition or disease, the same nutrient given to people who are not diagnosed as deficient yet have that condition/disease will benefit from supplementation, often in amounts in excess of what are currently defined as estimated average requirements or recommended daily allowances. Any additions to the zinc deficiency article should incorporate and distinguish between reviews of the epidemiological and clinical trial evidences. In my opinion, the epi evidence (Li 2017, PMID 28289077 and Swardfager 2013, PMID 23806573) is stronger than the clinical (Lai 2012, PMID 21798601 and Schefft 2017, PMID 28988944). I would not cite the EXAMINE review, as that is not a peer-reviewed source. David notMD (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you think Folate deficiency is in proper shape to be translated, or are there some badly written passages? I want to translate it when I have free time. --CopperKettle 13:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good enough David notMD (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Modern understanding

Hi, I saw your comment in the edit history of Jennie Smillie Robertson. Thanks for the changes; what would you suggest using instead of "modern understanding"? Thanks! originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 17:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I reworded with a phrase "science-based surgery' which I think will be less of a puzzle than "modern understanding" [of surgery history]. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

RPP

I requested temporary semi-protection for Pennsylvania Bluestone, which will hopefully stop the IP edits. Don't know if there's enough evidence for SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Hesitant to file a SPI, as 2600:1700:3260:5420:5951:c161:eab7:ea57 has already been blocked for 36 hours and the two other IPs who re-added the controversial content have done so only once each, and hopefully will cease. SV, the original contributor, is clearly an expert in this field and wants to add useful information. The conflict is not understanding that original research not allowed, nor linking to ones own blog as a source. David notMD (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

bluestone

I will make a proposal later today. Hopefully we can find consensus.Stevenvieczorek (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Again, the content you want to link to is informative, and from my knowledge of stonework, true. The sticking point is referencing or linking to unpublished content. My own website has >50 articles, many having been published in industry/trade magazines. I do not reference or link to my own work. David notMD (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me that added the Geocaching ref is it not a reliable source? The Pennsylvania bluestone parts are unreferenced. All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably true, but Geocache content added by individuals. However, that person's source content may be reliable:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catskill_Mountains
• http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/nyc/valleyandridge/valleyandridge.htm
• http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ch15.html#M212E

David notMD (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

None of these are specific to mention of bluestone. Best I can understand is that freshwater sedimentation created bluestone while marine sedimentation created limestone. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Assistance

Dear David notMD Thank you for your kind advice on how to comment on the page in question. I am not academic and this website is a mental assault course. I can see why there are a lot of "be kind to newbies" signs posted everywhere. I know I am going to make mistakes in what I want to do here. But, Faint Heart did never a Fair Lady win... is the motto. Vizor down and onward I go. Thank you, once again. I pray your day is awesome. TMB HER KNIGHT (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

When I began here I found myself on occasion (often?) reverted and chastised. Persevere. Beyond your interest in seeing one article deleted, I hope you find other articles that need editing. Improvement can be both addition and subtraction. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am still trying. I did write a delete article.. I did this in new section.. but it now seems to be published elsewhere. I am not sure how to use the Edit Source option. It looks like javascript or some such horror language. This water is pretty deep. Thanks for asking. Any advice ? lets pretend I am completely blind. Tony HER KNIGHT (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Your comment is there now. Must have been a refresh delay on the page. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant Items on "my" Page

There are irrelevant items on the Patty Wagstaff page, including what someone posted about a DUI, plus my birthdate which I do not want published.

I am having a hard time getting these things edited out and it's an urgent matter as far as I am concerned.

I wold like to get some help with this asap please.

I am also being told this is not "MY" page per se, but it is about me and I feel I should have some editorial control over what is said about me, esp. when it is not accurate, harmful to me or otherwise

Thank you Patty WagstaffAviatorgypsy (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the date of birth stuff, but someone else put it back. If you or someone else removes the DUI content I will not restore it again. David notMD (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

How to work on the draft article about Vitaly Tepikin further?

Hello David! I express you my sincere appreciation for the support in editing the draft article on the scientist Vitaly Tepikin Draft: Vitaly Tepikin. You did a great job clarifying the wording. On your advice, I added a few links to publications about the scientist. Put the article for re-consideration. Is everything properly done? Are there enough links? 5Traveler (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Answered at your Talk. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

~ Katelyn Nicole Davis ~ My ~ Angel ~

• David notMD I apologize for any disruption WE may have caused. All of my claims are substantiated, but my real world activities are where that enthusiasm and passion must be spent. I would have had to go through 2 police departments to just get a report about the rented house that was arsoned. I am in London... that house was in Piedmont Alabama. I did try. My focus is to right what I believe is an unacceptable wrong. If a malicious mob attacked a member of your family or a close friend, I would hope that you would follow them where ever the path might lead, in order to gain Justice. This is not an academic or mental exercise for me. I love those avenues of growth.. but this is personal and there is no ground where I will not take this battle. This "subject" has wider ramifications in terms of the danger of social media and the mental/emotional/developmental and physical safety and well being of our species. Sadly, if the social media side effects of political instability, unchecked hate/false fact distribution and escalating suicide rates, especially amongst ever younger children continues, the fonts of learning and enlightenment that websites such as Wikipedia are, will drain and evaporate fruitlessly on an infertile planet. So, Im just trying to save you , really LOL !! It is not that ~ Katelyn ~ should be forgotten. THAT will not happen in our Family and community. But ~ She ~ is not Famous in any other sense apart from this Tragedy. And far too many speculations have been presented as fact... and enter into the common history AS FACT. If its not a complete fact... then it is a lie. No decent person wants to hear or circulate lies about another person. Especially a Child. Lies that have and WILL continue to hurt, in particular, ~ Her ~ young Brother and Sister. And have all but destroyed ~ Her ~ Mother , Tammy. A very close friend of mine. Kin

Knowledge is Power. But with Power come Responsibility. Trite... but True. And Truth and Justice are the reins that best steer that Office of Responsibility. "DELETE" was the best outcome to what has always been a very biased and loaded attempt to weave a false or misleadingly edited narrative.. with a very clear mercenary motive.. as a part of a greater campaign to prove that an international online mob can be more of a judge jury and executioner than those who have been duly appointed in the locality that they have jurisdiction. If I do make any more appearances here it will be because my opponents have returned to infect your peaceful pursuit and presentation of this worlds verified events.. and need to be "correctly" opposed.. OR Tammy wants me to write and publish the truth. I can assure you that the word "Suicide" will not be used as a description and that you will be presented with an "article" that will prove verifiably worthy of inclusion. But the world would need to change significantly before that will happen. Thank you for your Guidance and forebearance. Sincerely Yours. Tony Bazley HER KNIGHT (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

After your letter...

Hello David! After your letter, which gave me useful guidelines, I continued to work on the draft of my article Draft: Vitaly Tepikin. You are absolutely right: more is not better. The volume of the article is reduced, unnecessary sections are removed from it. At the same time, new sources were introduced, and references were made to the section of biography in each paragraph. Biographical publications, reviews on the books of a scientist in the scientific press and major Russian newspapers ... I restricted the bibliographic list to books only, without including articles in it. In this form put the draft article for discussion. Is the application made correctly? Is there a chance for an article to be published in this form? Or, again, something miscalculated? I am very grateful for your help and constructive advice. Sorry to tear off important matters.5Traveler (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

MUCH improved. Can you find any references to confirm the facts in the first paragraph. Sometimes universities have webpages that list faculty and information on their education and career. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The sentencethat starts with Conceptualized is awkward and unclear. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As it is now?

David, for the first paragraph found a small biographical article in a reference book published in Ivanovo in 2015. The wording of the unsuccessful sentence has changed. As it is now?Draft: Vitaly Tepikin5Traveler (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Likelihood of being accepted much better. Your efforts are appreciated. I hope you can bring your energy to improving existing articles and creating new ones. David notMD (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Cogital

Hi David,

I am so sorry for causing an issue with the cogital page, this was not what i intended at all! I am so embarassed and was only trying to amend factual inaccuracies to do with the company as it has grown in the last year. What would you recommend I do to amend my mistake? Is there anything that can be done at this stage?

thanks so much for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimel123 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not at all a mistake. Often, people want to improve/update a company article. First, describe your paid relationship on your User page. Second, review WP:Paid for guidelines. Key is that people with paid relationships are strongly asked to describe the changes wanted at the article's Talk page versus to the article itself. Editors will review and decide what to add to the article. As written, the article CogitalGroup is a Stub with three invalid references. No editor has initiated a deletion, but that could happen. I recommend learning how to create Wikipedia references and then adding such as https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cogital-gets-serious-with-america-deal-qzg7hg0dn. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating page Dr Peter Osin

Dear David notMD,

Thanks very much for your response to my attempt to create a page for my partner Dr Peter Osin.

I'm not sure if this is the correct way to reply to your response (I imagined I might be able to click a 'reply' button somewhere - so I'm trying this as a best guess! - if you could a advise me if this is not correct, I'd be very grateful.)

As regards the copyright, of the Marsden material, I believe it belongs to Peter himself - though I will rewrite it. Is it stored somewhere, or has it gone to the electronic either for ever and a day?

I'm also happy to declare a conflict of interest (the material is entirely neutral and referenced) - can you let me know how I do this?

The material I had put up was a 'first stage'. I had hoped to go on to add, that Peter has written in The Times on the why there might be connection between lipid production and opera singing - which is his major interest, and not merely what he trained for. (The piece caused something of a stir). Also he has written with a colleague on the pathology of kosher and halal meat, which stirred a debate in parliament. I believe that these things make him notable.

Many thanks for your time - Kind regards Warwick Thompson --WarwickThompson (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear David notMD, Many thanks for your helpful response. Much appreciated. I'll have another go along the lines you suggest at helping to alert the wikiworld to the notability of Dr Osin! Kind regards and best wishes Warwick --WarwickThompson (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

RE: Notable Cases (Mildred Younger) reference

Hi David NotMD,

Thank you for your edits to improve the Spasmodic Dysphonia entry. I see your point - that the initial reference I found does not give quite enough information to validate the claim of "first patient" status to Mildred Younger. However, she is the first; I've actually spoken to Dr. Dedo to confirm this, but I don't think Wiki permits "first person" communication as a reference. I do have another source, however.

I'm a novice, so perhaps you can help me resolve the problem of documenting the first patient to undergo RLN surgery. I see that I need to add an additional reference, the issue is that the best source I have found is not online. Should I include both references, regardless?

This line is included in the L.A. Times obituary I referenced:

"In 1975, a surgeon in San Francisco who was an authority on paralysis of the larynx operated on the nerves controlling her vocal cords after trying other experimental treatments over eight months. Younger quickly regained the full use of her voice. A week after the operation, she was using the telephone to pull pranks on friends and relatives who hadn't heard her normal voice in almost two decades.

Another article I found is in the San Francisco Examiner (newspaper) title=A Voice-after 17 silent years (The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America) · 15 Sep 1976, Wed · Page 19 Downloaded on Feb 20, 2019 from newspapers.com) states:

"After the operation to try to reactivate vocal cords stilled for 17 years, the surgeon was too excited to wait until the patient was out of the anasthetic."He was shaking me and saying 'Say something, say something,'recalled Mildred Younger.If I had not been so groggy, I would have said "Get lost." "...a supportive husband and son kept her searching and one happy day she was referred to Dr. Herbert Dedo, otolaryngologist at UC San Francisco (Header:) First-of-a-kind operation Dr. Herbert Dedo,(photo at left) an otolaryngologist at UC Medical Center, here, decided that Younger's condition was neuromuscular and decided on an operation that he had never tried before: he paralyzed one vocal cord surgically to allow the other one to work. The operation was a success, and Dedo has now performed others like it. At right, a probe suspends the recurrent laryngeal nerve in an operation like Younger's.

I appreciate your guidance on how to fix this so that it is acceptable.

Thanks much ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The obituary reference confirmed a date but not 'first.' The second one has "First of a kind operation." As to where to put this in the Spasmodic dysphonia article, I suggest in the History section rather than Notable cases. In general, people are not included in 'Notable' lists unless there is already an existing Wikipedia article about them, which is not the case for Mildred Younger. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Hey David notMD - Thanks again, yes I'd thought of adding more to the History section. (Frankly this entry needs a LOT of updating and it's hard to know where to start...) I have already added Jimmie F. Rodgers, an existing Wiki entry, to Notable Cases - and in doing so, noticed that his page is sadly deficient in sources and facts about his life, so that will be my next project... Also, being a Wiki beginner, I noticed that Wiki encourages the inclusion of verifiable, notable new entries. I was not aware that they were not welcomed in "notable lists", but do understand why this would usually be the case, and thanks for pointing that out. In this case, however, Mildred Eberhard Younger, though hardly a household name, is clearly a public figure, known for much more than her surgery. In fact, the surgery probably would have remained a footnote in some medical journal without her being a celebrity first patient. She is photographed widely, appearing in captioned images found online in Getty Historical Images, the Library of Congress, Life Magazine and also her image readily pops up in just about any search engine chosen.I could tell you a lot more about what makes her at least as notable as Henrietta Lacks, (and more inspiring) but you'd possibly be bored! So, anyway, the reason I need to get some editing experience in is so that I can write an entry about Mildred Eberhard Younger. I've now learned that I can do a short article as a stub, adding to it later. I'd like to first get a bit more experience navigating my way around Wiki help and learning the protocols and culture before I go in too many new technically challenging (to me!) directions at once. That said, I will now go in and try to add the second reference to her citation, and add her to the History section. Would you be OK with me putting her back in Notable Cases, for now, with the verified second source you've seen? Thanks much.ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, advice is not to put someone in a Notable section unless an article already exists about that person. As to writing that article, even stubs should have several published, independent references. I found an obit http://articles.latimes.com/2006/nov/16/local/me-younger16 but what it includes does not suggest she meets Wikipedia's idea of notable. I have to ask, is there a personal connection to this desire to write about ME Younger? That might call for you to declare what Wikipedia considers a conflict of interest WP:COI.

Hi David notMD, I've reviewed Wiki's guidance regarding notablity and have retrieved 7 reliable published sources independent of the subject. These are reputable media sources, online, with significant coverage of her political career. Several of these mention and document the surgery. These sources span more than 30 years, demonstrating durable notability. In addition, the photographic archives of the LOC and Getty Images, mentioned previously, give evidence of the existence of other sources, further underscoring this subject's notability, outside the context of a single event (surgery).

I've reviewed the COI. My personal desire to write about ME Younger is not the result of the slightest financial, familial or professional connection, past, present or future - there is none - and does not constitute what Wikipedia considers a conflict of interest, as far as I can tell. I am seeking help in writing a stub at this point and will then submit ME Younger as a notable case, unless you wish to see further detail on the sources I plan to use at this point. (Please let me know.) I welcome your advice. Thanks again for your guidance.ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you undertake a MEY article I suggest that you amend your User page to state no COI. You need to edit it anyway - I left a note there about what does not belong on a user page. Again, in my opinion, MEY falls short of notable. Typically, the bar is federal or state elected officials (not active, not appointed, nor ran but not elected). If she qualified for being notable politically, then a section within the article could describe her spasmodic dysphonia and successful, experimental, surgical treatment, but that does not add to her qualifying for notability. All my opinion. If you want to go for it, go for it. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi David nonMD, Thank you for the many suggestions! I would like to know more about amending my User page to state no COI, as you recommend. Can you kindly direct me to the guidelines that will help me to understand what belongs on the "Talk" vs "User" pages, and (if appropriate) please suggest the language you would recommend for accomplishing the purpose? As I continue to learn the ropes of navigating Wiki, I appreciate the opportunity to improve my skills, in compliance with the Wiki requirements and generous advice from more experienced editors, such as yourself.

As we seem to disagree about the notability of Mildred Eberhard Younger, I'll continue to explore that topic further, and will endeavor to act accordingly. Again, thank you very much for all your helpful suggestions.ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Biography of Michael H. L. Hecker (a fellow MIT graduate)

Good Morning, David notMD!

My name is Michael H. L. Hecker. I'm new to Wikipedia. At the suggestion of Kenneth N. Stevens, my MIT professor of speech science, and with help from two former co-workers, I have finally drafted my Wikipedia biography. It is located in my Sandbox. The person who welcomed me to Wikipedia (Red Director) was favorably impressed and recommended that I bring this work to the attention of an experienced biography editor. Perhaps you can help me to get this contribution ready for publication. May I send you a suitable picture of myself for the page layout?

Sincerely yours, Michael H. L. Hecker. 3/28/2019 2601:648:8103:7E35:E983:B50A:6786:8757 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael - Several points: I recommend you create a User page by registering an account with a user name. Does not need to be as decorative as mine, but important to have one. Once you have done that, every comment you make on an editor's Talk page or an article's Talk page should be followed by typing four of ~. That in effect 'signs' the comment, so people know who it was and when. Third, Wikipedia strongly tries to dissuade people from writing an autobiographic article - mostly because it is almost impossible to write with a neutral point of view (NPOV) about oneself. If you decide to go ahead, it will be important to declare on your User page that you are the subject of the draft. See WP:Autobiography and WP:COI, the latter for conflict-of-interest. Do realize that if you do manage to create an article and it is approved in the Articles for Creation (AfC) review, it is not 'your' article. Other editors can add and edit content as long as they can provide independent references for the new factual statements. NOTABILITY: This is a high hurdle, and I am not sure you career qualifies. Wikipedia's definition of notability is not what you have written, nor academic positions you have held, but rather what people have published about you. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines for qualifying. If you've gotten this far an are still optimistic, be sure that your referencing is in Wikipedia format. I will be happy to answer any questions this response has engendered. David notMD (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael H. L. Hecker's response to your comments

Hello again, David notMD,

Thank you for your detailed reply to my request for your help. It appears that the biggest obstacle to having my biography published is the Notability Issue. I have no knowledge of what people may have published about me. I have always served them well in my professional work. The fact that I was always called upon by high-level government agencies to help them solve critical problems made me believe that they had only good opinions about me. There was no need or opportunity for them to publish anything about me. I purposely avoided acting like a scientific celebrity. If this issue cannot be resolved in my somewhat unusual case, I am forced to withdraw my submitted draft.

With respect to the User-Name Issue, I have tried to create a new user page with the name "Piefke", but I had no luck. I found no instructions for making this name change.

My biography is not strictly an autobiography because I incorporated so many suggestions regarding contents and format from my colleagues. I always make an effort to write from a neutral point of view. And there is certainly no conflict of interest here.

Please feel free to discuss these matters with other editors. Thank you again, and please let me know your decision.

Sincerely, Michael H. L. Hecker. 3/28/2019 Michael H. L. Hecker (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Your User name now showing up as User:Michael H. L. Hecker. Prior, it was a long string of numbers - an IP address. You are not obligated to have a User name other than your real name. If you want to change it, I can send instructions. David notMD (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I cut a lot of content that was not Wikipedia-neutral, or was not referenced and VERY unlikely to be referenced. Content can be true, but not accepted specifically because it is not referenced. Writing about a person, place or business you know personally is by Wikipedia' definition a conflict of interest. It does not have to be financial. That is a stricter level covered under WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, David notMD.

At your advice, I will remove my submission from Wikipedia. I did not realize that Wikipedia only publishes biographies from well-known personalities. In my opinion, they hardly need more exposure.

I appreciate your work as an editor, and I wish you good luck!

Sincerely, Michael H. L. Hecker. March 29, 2019. Michael H. L. Hecker (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Dido Elizabeth Belle

Hi David. You started to run with this one whilst I was working on a reply to CapnZapp. The problem is that the IP user is correct. The IP has added quite a nice summary to the talk page which Zapp has not responded to. I'm fairly certain that Zapp is confusing the abolition of slavery in the British Empire with a non-existent abolition of slavery within England. He has started throwing accusations of "hate speech" speech about when the edit history shows no such thing, other than his 'Sorry I don't take the word of someone that just added slander like "typical Hebraic effort to rewrite history with an anti-white slant"'. I've spent quite some time trying to find the "slander" but haven't yet located it. What needs to be done is to correct the Dido article to refer to the following:

• The Somersett Case (aka Mansfield ruling) established that slavery had never, since time immemorial (actually he claimed further back to the Conquest), bben established in England.
• Ergo all past slaves reaching English soil were immediately free men under English law.
• Dido had been born to a slave mother and a free father and had then come to England, therefore she was a free woman.
• Mansfield ensured in his will that there was no question of her status should she travel abroad. Most European countries at this time would have supported a slave master trying to regain control of his slaves.
• The ruling (1772) may have been part of a long campaign to abolish slavery worldwide, but its practical effect in England was quite tightly constrained.

Since you've started dealing with this I'll leave you to continue, but I would suggest a caution to Zapp about his inflammatory accusations might not come amiss, as is a gentle hint that not all IPs who disagree with him are automatically villains. His comment "Each IP user hasn't done "enough", and seems careful to only use valid expressions (and so I can't rule out good faith)" does indicate a certain prejudice.

If you need any help with this, feel free to ask. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I am ignorant on the topic, and am willing, no, desirous, to have no more to do with the article. The phrase "typical Hebraic effort to rewrite history with an anti-white slant" was I believe in the very first of the IP edits on March 27, and I think not part of the subsequent edit war. The editors in question have started a discussion at Talk (you edited there). All I wanted to do was to revert to the pre-revert war version as a placeholder. Please take up this torch! David notMD (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads-up I've read your response, User:Martin of Sheffield. David is indeed correct - it was that earlier edit that made me disinclined to trust the (one and only?) IP editor. Carry on. CapnZapp (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Domestic life is interfering! I may get a chance to get back to this later in the evening. CapnZapp, I found the passage. I'd been looking at the edit summaries not the diffs. I'll move over to the talk page. Best Wishes David, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Revised Edition of my Biography

Hello again, David notMD,

Thank you for explaining to me that a critical requirement for a biography subject is that other people have published their opinions about the subject. Unfortunately, my biographical draft gave you the impression that I had few dealings with other people, and that they rarely referred to me in print. This is not really the case.

For the section of my draft entitled "Scientific contributions", I had selected mainly scientific accomplishments without mentioning how other people responded to them.

Because I would like my biography to appear in Wikipedia, I have revised my draft to include contributions that have prompted other people to express themselves about me, both in their written words and in their behavior.

Please be so kind as to give me another chance. Please read the revised version of my biography, which is located in my Sandbox. Let us move forward together. I have a lot of respect for your helpful opinions.

Sincerely, Michael H. L. Hecker. April 4, 2019 Michael H. L. Hecker (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not the one providing a chance - only advice. Only when you submit this to Articles for Creation will an Administrator (I am not one) accept or decline. I had made an effort to put your previous draft in the right format. You deleted that and reverted to an unacceptable format. In addition, none of your references are in correct format. I had deleted content that had no references. You restored much/all of it. Today, I restored format to User:Michael H. L. Hecker/sandbox but made no changes to content or referencing. My comments:

• All: Wikipedia articles cannot be references. If there is a Wikipedia article about a person or place, instead enclose it in double brackets: Charlotte Berend-Corinth
• Early life: None of the content has references. This means even if all true, none of it can be in the article. All content must be referenced.
• Education: Most of the content is without references.
• Scientific contributions: A Certificate of Achievement is not an acceptable reference. Much of this section is without acceptable references. Your descriptions of how people expressed information about you and your work have no weight - only their published content. The fact that your testimony as an expert witness was allowed does not contribute to notability. Ditto that you have had articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
• Overall: If you remove all content that is not referenced and create properly formatted references for the rest, it is my opinion that the article does not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, and will be declined by a reviewer if submitted. David notMD (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

___________________

Dear David notMD and Liance,

David, I apologize for writing to Liance that you had approved the text of my biography. It was an incorrect assumption on my part. After you read my first draft, you advised me to provide references that would satisfy the notability requirements (for academics). Because, in my work, references are added at the end of an article, I thought that the text itself met with your approval. I did not understand what you meant. Now I know that the references have to be embedded in the text. That is why I have re-written and re-submitted my biography, hoping for a better outcome. Please excuse my former ignorance of “the rules”.

Sincerely, Michael H. L. Hecker. 15 April, 2019. Michael H. L. Hecker (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not just the referencing, which is still not in correct format. Per my April 4 entry (above), much of your proposed content has no references. I stand by mo opinion that however much improved, this article will not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, and will be declined again. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Serpentza does not Live in Shenzhen anymore, he reside in San Diego, USA,

Hi Serpentza does not Live in Shenzhen anymore, he reside in San Diego, USA, Please read his patreon page https://www.patreon.com/SerpentZA, Big Big Cultural Challenges ahead, his instagram, twitters, where he confirms with followers he stays in Southern California, USA, pictures of him living in USA, but his wife confirms on her channel also First he discussed in youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J35AxY1pLE (see at 11:30 time) Latest videos by him, instagram, and Patreon all confirm he is in Southern https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXFUJBn-uVw7NuBcDu-byFw/videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.121.141 (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

China YT for Serpentza is probably him also, China YT Only contributions are for Serpentza article

China YT for Serpentza is probably him also, China YT Only contributions are for Serpentza article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.121.141 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please review Cunards latest edits on Serpentza

He added in youtube self posts again, disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.121.141 (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone else removed those posts. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red yeast rice

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Red yeast rice you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red yeast rice

The article Red yeast rice you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Red yeast rice for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have left a note on the GA review page about my personal delays. I don't want to keep this in limbo forever, but have not been able to dedicate the time the article deserves in order to perform a thorough review, so I have requested a second opinion in the hopes that someone else is willing and available to take over. If not, I will return when I am able to resume my efforts here, but it is not likely to be for several more weeks. I apologize for leaving this in limbo for so long. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red yeast rice

The article Red yeast rice you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Red yeast rice for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK submitted 8/17/19. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Red yeast rice

On 9 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Red yeast rice, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that red yeast rice is used both in traditional Chinese medicine and as a modern-day dietary supplement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Red yeast rice. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Red yeast rice), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

COI and articles

Hello David notMD,

I am a PhD in Public Health working for a driving simulator company. We are trying to improve the quality of driver training and testing for all drivers, novice, aging, professional etc. Road safety is an issue that has never received the attention it merits with practical interventions aimed at promoting safer driving. My company's work addresses the lack of objective measurements and safe controlled learning environments for drivers. I believe that we have done some very interesting and genuinely noteworthy work that merits a Wiki page.

For example, as much as possible, we work with third-party university researchers to validate our training programs using a recurrent engineering approach. This means that our training programs are subjected to field tests, evaluated by third-party independent university researchers who publish or present their results after peer review, and based on these results, we modify and improve the programs, as required.

The article I prepared (which I will gladly share with you for your comments and critiques) is thoroughly referenced. There are 15 citations for 36 lines of text, four to peer-reviewed publications, five to other Wiki pages, one of which is a private company, CAE, which was probably written by someone paid by CAE. The founders of my company formerly worked at CAE; the remaining citations are from newspapers and government and consumer group websites distinct from my company.

I strongly support the neutrality policy of Wiki and would never knowingly infringe on that policy or present biased information. Compared to you, I am a complete beginner in the wonderful world of Wiki, and frankly, I need assistance.

I would so greatly appreciate it if you would be kind enough to help me navigate this process.

Please consider my request and let me know what you think.

If you create it via Articles for Creation then it will exist as an unsubmitted draft, visible to other editors but not to people searching Wikipedia or using a search engine. Once that is done you can add a note here with the article name. Do not use existing Wikipedia pages as references. When you create the draft, you are required to declare your paid relationship on your Talk page. See WP:PAID. LAstly, sign entries on people's Talk pages and Talk of articles by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely,

DriverSafety (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello David NotMD,

As you suggested, I fixed the references on the driving simulator page and I prepared the article for Wiki, titled Virage Simulation, Inc. using my sandbox. There were some bugs I could not fix, extra text at the end of th article I wanted to but could not delete and a missing title in a reference I could not complete. I hope I correctly identified the COI.

I am told this review could take up to 8 weeks so there is no hurry but I would appreciate your feedback on my article.

Many thanks,

DriverSafety (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello David NotMD,

Thanks for your editing work on my article submission.

I have added the WP:PAID designation to my user page, but I am not sure I placed it correctly. Please confirm, if you don't mind.

Finally, I am not sure what defines notability for a corporation.

Does only size matter?

I base that question on the CAE page. Why is a CAE page okay but not one for Virage Simulation? What information am I missing?

My company is small but we are unique and advanced in our approach to addressing the human factors problems related to driver safety. We base everything we do on research. Before joining the company, I worked for decades in driver training and driver research. I can testify that the official policies that exert a huge influence on social norms for driver behavior are based more on political expediency than on research. I am guessing you may be familiar with this phenomenon. The only countermeasure for training safer drivers prior to licensing is driving simulation. But the case for this conclusion still needs to be made.

What sets my company apart is that we make as few assumptions as possible about how driver's learn and we have third party researchers test our programs in the real world. If this does not make us notable, I am not sure what notable means.

Your advice and guidance is most welcome and appreciated. DriverSafety (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is CAE Inc., but other-stuff-exists is not a valid argument. Many of the millions of Wikipedia articles merit deletion (not saying CAE merits that). In the current draft, some content has no citations. My cautionary note was just to explain what could happen, not what will happen. I put the PAID template on the draft's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I thank you for your help. You point out that some content has no citations. I only included reliable third party citations and deliberately excluded newspaper or magazine references that might be perceived as promotional in nature. I would greatly appreciate it if you could identify the content in the proposed article that needs citations, and any content that you consider does not meet the neutrality standard. Thanks. DriverSafety (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

the issue of linking articles to the website of the company for which I am submitting a page

Hi David notMD,

You commented that four references in the Virage Simulation Wiki article submission link back to the website of Virage.

These are scientific journal articles or peer-reviewed conference papers that are not easily accessible to anyone outside academia. They are also supporting evidence for the main claim to notability since my company is the only one I am aware of that invests so high a proportion of its budget in development and collaborating with third-party researchers to validate the training programs. I want Wiki readers, especially those who are reviewing my submission, to have access to those papers which I am allowed to share as the co-author of three of them. I am 99% sure I can share the fourth, but if not, I will remove the link and only list the reference.

If the link to the Virage website is an issue for acceptance, I will gladly remove it.

Please advise.

Thanks DriverSafety (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's preference is to reference the original sources of the material, even if the content is behind a paywall. That includes journal articles. (Abstracts or papers presented at conferences are problematic, as usually not having gone through a peer-review process.) Editors presume that creators of articles are truthfully paraphrasing the journal articles used as citations. Thus, no need to reference to PDFs put on a companyn website. David notMD (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, thanks. I will remove the PDF links when I receive more feedback on the page. As of now, only you and one other editor, Liance, have given me any feedback in the form of do's (the COI declarations that I hope I resolved correctly) and stated preferences. Personally, I love accessing articles directly and become quite frustrated with paywalls. So, assuming others may feel the same way, I would like to keep the articles accessible. Is there a way I can place the articles directly on Wiki, to avoid the link to the website?DriverSafety (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be a non-acceptable copyright infringement. Very unlikely you will get any editor comments before a reviewer decides to accept or decline. David notMD (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Update on company page submission

Hi David,

Just to let you know, I have edited and added to the reference section, largely guided by your comments. Aside from the official website address to Virage Simulation at the end of the article, there are no direct links to the company website embedded in the reference section (If I missed any I will remove them on the next pass through).

I have added many secondary source references to peer-reviewed journals and conference papers (every conference paper I have ever submitted was peer-reviewed, all of which included full disclosures of my relationship to the company). One newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, that published two articles about us has a firewall, so I could not add more detail than I have supplied.

I hope you or someone else will advise me on how to improve this article so it can meet the high standards of neutrality and notability that make Wiki worth trusting.

Thanks again, DriverSafety (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Patience. AfC estimates that it make take as long as eight weeks, but the reality of the backlog is more than a third of submittals are more than eight weeks old. It's not a queue - reviewers select what they want to do. David notMD (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Update on company page submission

Hi David,

Just to let you know, I have edited and added to the reference section, largely guided by your comments. Aside from the official website address to Virage Simulation at the end of the article, there are no direct links to the company website embedded in the reference section (If I missed any I will remove them on the next pass through).

I have added many secondary source references to peer-reviewed journals and conference papers (every conference paper I have ever submitted was peer-reviewed, all of which included full disclosures of my relationship to the company). One newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, that published two articles about us has a firewall, so I could not add more detail than I have supplied.

I hope you or someone else will advise me on how to improve this article so it can meet the high standards of neutrality and notability that make Wiki worth trusting.

Thanks again, DriverSafety (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Patience. AfC estimates that it make take as long as eight weeks, but the reality of the backlog is more than a third of submittals are more than eight weeks old. It's not a queue - reviewers select what they want to do. David notMD (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

correcting an early mistake

Hello David notMD,

I am a bit clumsy with accounts, passwords etc. (I have been known to pay the same utility bill multiple times). A fair amount of time elapsed between my first entry into the Wiki community and my second. On that second occasion, I mistakenly opened a second account and never again intentionally used the first one. Recently, I asked to have the first account removed. Kevin informed me that I could not do so but that it was not a problem if I only use one account. I now notice that there is a message on my talk page that says I am "a user of multiple accounts". It is far more accurate to state that I opened a second account by mistake and cannot close it. Is there any way to remove or qualify the message --user of multiple accounts -- as it is potentially misleading and may imply something negative to the community. As you know, I am currently being paid to write a page for my company and I do not want my early inexperience and clumsy entry into the Wiki community to reflect poorly on my current efforts to demonstrate transparency. Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks.DriverSafety (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You were cautioned (sort of warned lite) and promised to no longer use the old account. Anyone finding that account will see that it is redirected to your DriverSafety account. All editors have the option of archiving older Talk posts (or deleting). Most archive. Options are manual or automatic (any posts older than a chosen months back go to archive). The absolutely critical matter is that you did not use more than one account to edit one article, a cardinal sin known as sockpuppetry. David notMD (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks fo editing suggestions

Hi again,

I have followed most of your advice and removed the photo and the model numbers. I also removed one of the scientific journal references and may remove others tomorrow.

I also wrote the editor who did not accept the article because it appeared too much like an advert. This puzzled me because almost every statement was supported by independent, verifiable sources.

I hope that editor responds. If not, what then?

Thanks again,DriverSafety (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The (very experienced) reviewer may not respond. I recommend revise and resubmit. You will get a different reviewer. I removed two refs. David notMD (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Demonstrating Notability for a Corporate Page

Hello David NotMD,

May I just call you David? So far I feel you have been fair and tough with me. Thanks. I am not here to waste anyone's time.

I have prepared an analysis of why I think my submission meets the Wiki standards of notability. By using the grid on the Wiki site for the criteria of Significance, Independence, Reliability, and Secondary sourcing, I determined that 16 of the 21 references in the article pass the test of notability.

My question is what do I do with these analyses?

Is it appropriate to send the 3-page document to the editor who has already concluded that my submission does not pass the test?

Would you be open to reviewing my arguments?

Do I simply resubmit the edited version and wait for other editors to weigh in?

Please advise.

ThanksDriverSafety (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I recommend not sending it to the reviewer who declined. Sometimes less is more (hence my recommendation to remove weak references, and even the image, which probably is article-appropriate). If the article can be approved from what was declined, do so. Then resubmit. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by "If the article can be approved from what was declined, do so. Then resubmit." Do I resubmit the article now, as is, with the edits you and I made (at your suggestion)?

One more question. How do editors evaluate the notability criteria of an article if they cannot easily access the references or understand them? Two of my strongest notable references are feature articles on the company, one that appeared in an English language daily newspaper that is behind a paywall and the other that appeared in a French language daily newspaper. DriverSafety (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant "improved from what was declined". Reviewers tend to take on faith the content of citations that are behind paywalls. I shortened article more. Recommend resubmitting as is. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. DriverSafety (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow up on Virage Simulation page submission

Hello David notMD,

I hope you are well. Many weeks have passed since the page I submitted, that you kindly helped me edit, was rejected. I worry that the initial negative review might have had a strong and chilling effect on potential future reviewers. Would you please do me a huge favor and tell me what you think the status of my submission is.

I am being asked to hire outside consultants to retry submitting the article but I know that I have already done all the research that is possible to establish my claim to notability and the tone of the revised article is certainly far less commercial than the first submission.

Please tell me what is missing and what I need to do. Many thanks

DriverSafety (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Virage Simulation has been declined once, resubmitted, and is waiting on a new review. Declined is not the same as rejected. Being declined once is not prejudicial for the next reviewer as long as attempts have been made to improve the article. I removed the sentence that rested on the Gibson 1938 article as in my opinion it was too remote from what the Virage program does. Given the current published content about Virage, I do not see how more can be added to the draft. On a separate note, your User page claims a COI and does not name the company. This is not sufficient. Either using the Paid template or not, you should declare your relationship as paid and name the company, i.e., Virage Simulation. Wikipedia strongly frowns on undeclared paid. That in itself can lead to drafts being rejected and the editor blocked. David notMD (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello David,

Thanks for your response, attention and advice. I added the clarification to my user page COI, as you recommended. I accept your last edit to my article submission because your judgment most probably conforms with the perceptions of other Wiki editors about road safety, driver and road user responsibilities and requisite education and training.

For decades I owned a driving school and the majority of parents brought their children to me for the primary purpose of getting them a driver's license. Serious training in defensive driving, the basis of which is described in that 1938 reference that is to this day considered to be pertinent by the most respected researchers, was my priority, not theirs. Mobility, the immediate need for a driver's license, generally trumps safety concerns for parents and government licensing authorities etc. The dichotomy between safety and mobility is, in my long considered study of these issues, false, misleading, myopic and dangerous. My role in my company is to facilitate safety training so that this false dichotomy is exposed and fewer and fewer drivers unnecessarily risk causing harm on the roads. One day, maybe, I will publish a text on this subject in an appropriate publication. All this to say that the 1938 reference you deleted is more relevant than most people realize.

I hope that a Wiki editor reviews my submission in the very near future and allows its publication. Thanks again. DriverSafety (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia distinguishes what is true from what is verifiable from what is germaine. The content about Gibson was true and verified, but for a reviewer not familiar with driver safety training, might have appeared as not directly relevant to Virage. It's a judgement call. Sometimes a draft has to be pruned to fit Wikipedia's concept of an encyclopedia article. I wish you luck with the resubmitted draft. David notMD (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I improve on luck by paying one of the many professional consultants who guarantee results? I am highly skeptical of guarantees, especially having experienced the rigor practiced by the two Wiki editors I have encountered. I have also seen a comment from a Wiki editor that the COI creates a serious, almost insurmountable bias against acceptance. Do you have any advice about hiring consultants?DriverSafety (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hiring people is no guarantee of improving odds of the article being accepted. I believe you have identified all of the relevant references. And remember, anyone you hire would have to declare paid if directly editing (but not if advising you on what changes to make). I suggest you first see what happens at the next review. David notMD (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello once again, The editor who declined my first submission believed my company lacks notability. Lack of familiarity with the field of road safety is normal, so it is not easy to appreciate our unique accomplishments. The prime example is that, to the very best of my knowledge, Virage Simulation is the only driving simulator company in North America (and possibly the world) to have collaborated with independent university researchers and published in peer-reviewed journals the results of transfer of training studies of its driver training programs. There is no third party reliable source to support that claim. Driver training has never been a hot media topic.

My question: How can I insert a statement in the company page about the notablility of our published transfer of training studies (one of which won an award from the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC)? Thanks again for your support. DriverSafety (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoever decides to review the revised submission will look at past comments, and especially look to see if some of those initial criticisms were addressed, but will make their own decision. Yes, it is possible it will be declined again, with new comments. Also possible that it will be approved. Your desire to include a statement that the Virage program has been researched and published in journals or presented at a conference is referenced, but as you yourself have pointed out, there is no independent confirmation that this is unique. My opinion is that SAGE journals do not have a good reputation. I do not recommend trying to add any claims for uniqueness based on the journal research. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response and for the information about SAGE journals. I really was not aware of their reputation. I will now practice patience.DriverSafety (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the reference to the opinion page on predatory journals. In my albeit limited experience, every conference and journal I have submitted to has conducted serious and thorough peer reviews and I regularly conduct peer reviews for several journals. I take the review process very seriously and appreciate the opportunity to have scientific texts, my own and those of colleagues, scrutinized and improved or rejected if absolutely necessary. I am glad to say I have not encountered predatory practices anywhere. I now tell people that my confidence in Wikipedia has increased, even if my own submission is in a type of purgatory, because of my experience, albeit limited, with the Wikipedia editors I have encountered. Sadly, one colleague reacted by saying she had many issues and disagreements with certain Wikipedia articles. When the time is right, I will strongly encourage her to get her feet wet, join the Wikipedia community and participate rather than complain.DriverSafety (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarification about notability criteria for Virage Simulation article submission

Hello David notMD,

I did not want to impose on your generosity any further but the exchanges I had on the other sites related to aiding me in my submission process were not helpful. To support my claim that the article I have submitted is notable, I now have four references.

1. The Montreal Campus is the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM) Student Newspaper serving a student body of 15,000. The 2008 story was a 1,100-word account of Virage Simulation. The name Virage Simulation appears ten (10) times in the story along with an interview with president, a mention of the number of employees and the announcement of a pilot project with Quebec government to substitute up to 50% of the 12 hours of in-car lessons with an equivalent number of driving simulator lessons for novice, adolescent drivers.

2. The Montreal Gazette is Montreal’s largest English language daily newspaper with a daily circulation of 115,000 readers. This 2009 news article is an 870-word feature exclusively about the Virage Simulation company, its history, products and programs. The name Virage Simulation appears five (5) times in the story along with product descriptions and interviews with the president and research director.

3. La Presse is a French-language newspaper published in Montreal with a daily circulation of 205,000 readers. This 2013, 522-word feature in La Presse focused exclusively on the Virage Simulation company, with seven (7) name mentions, interviews with the president and a company profile.

4. This 2018 La Presse article is a 761-word feature that focuses exclusively on the Virage Simulation company, with nine (9) name mentions, interviews with the president and vice-president, key clients, history, number of employees and all the languages they speak.

I learned from one Wiki member at the other site that I consulted that the college newspaper does not count as significant and that the three articles that appear in newspapers are not independent because they contain interviews with company employees. The comment was that these were press releases because of the interviews.

Are these judgments correct according to your understanding of Wiki rules? Thanks again for your consideration and patience.DriverSafety (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Regrets, I have a book deadline that is consuming my time. Best wishes. David notMD (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Good luck with the book deadline. Best wishes to you also.DriverSafety (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Folate

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Folate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Folate

The article Folate you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Folate for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Folate GA

Thanks for the note - I've been keeping an eye on it, and it looks like things are progressing. I can wait to finalize the review a bit longer, with no issues. Canada Hky (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I think 99% of the issues have been addressed. There were a couple points that might have been typos / things that got lost in the reorganization. They are listed in the "Finalizing review" section of the GA review subpage. Canada Hky (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you put into the article, along with your collaborators. It was fun to work through and make improvements. Canada Hky (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Folate

The article Folate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Folate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Folate

Hello! Your submission of Folate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

DYK for Folate

On 27 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Folate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that folic acid, a synthetic form of the vitamin folate, is added to wheat flour in many countries to reduce the risk of infants being born with spina bifida and other neural tube defects? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Folate. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Folate), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Striking sock puppets

You may like to know about the WP:TPO behavioral guideline: "Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived." These were socks of Morphin2020 (SPI page) and are indefinitely blocked. I'll let you self-revert or another editor restore the edit though. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. If that was in the Edit summary. I missed it. David notMD (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

House of Industry

Hi there. I'd like to thank you for doing some copyedits on Draft:Wellington County House of Industry and Refuge back when it was a few sentences long. I'm almost done with it now, and if you have some time, I'd greatly appreciate if you could give it a look before I send it off to mainspace to see if there are any glaring issues. As I said on my userpage, writing this article was new territory for me, so I thought it would be good to get some other eyes on it. Just ignore this message if you don't feel like it though :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Paul Stamets

David -- I've noticed your edits on medicinal mushrooms where you've probably come across the Stamets story. I'm in a debate about whether he has earned the right of title as a "mycologist" here where there is also an RfC about his self-taught expertise. Although reputable WP:RS like the NY Times and Seattle Times have referred to him as a mycologist, no one has published an objective review about whether he qualifies to have a scientific title that typically requires advanced academic degrees and research history. I joined the fray at the Stamets article where he has advocates defending him as a mycologist, but I reject this title by reviewing the false health claims and scamming that occurs with his online/mail-order company, "Fungi Perfecti" (click on a product and review "Benefits"). Would appreciate your assessment and thoughts, with thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ghrelin

David - thanks for the culling of animal research. Finding good (non-animal) reviews is a challenge (this is hormone research, which of course resists definition in humans in vivo), but I hope you'll continue to inspect, remove and revise as needed. User:Suzanne Dickson is a specialist and is taking a "journal-minded" view for the article, which will likely have to be tempered for the encyclopedia, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, #6-8. I am leaving shortly for a trip, and will have limited time for WP over the next few days, just fyi. --Zefr (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I limited my deletions to the section "Locations of action," as to a non-scientist reader, those statements were likely to be understood as proven in humans. I have no intention to take the same scissors to other parts of the article. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested review of Digital PCR Page

Hi David notMD,

I noticed you edited the digital PCR page recently. I also saw that you're an expert in biochemistry. As it happens, I've been looking for an expert without an COI to review my contributions to the page. I made substantial edits to the page to remove elements of bias and promotion, yet another editor added a message at the top suggesting that the article might still be biased because of my COI. Would you please review the page and, using your own judgement, decide whether the article still appears biased? And if not, remove the message at the top?

Thank you, Cglife.bmarcus (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The article in question is entirely outside my area of expertise (nutritional biochemistry), and so I am not in any position to edit it in significant ways that might lead to another editor removing the COI tag. Separately, I recommend that on your User page, you add the title(s) of the article(s) that you have been editing on behalf of clients, rather than just naming the clients. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Choline review

Hello! Would you like to review this choline draft article and suggest/make improvements to it? I was thinking that this draft could replace the current choline article. See also the talk page, if you are interested. 5-HT2AR (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No. See my comment on the Choline Talk page. David notMD (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Skunky

Hey There! Please specify which sources that are not reliable, in which I used. Curly Carley 11:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curly-carley (talk • contribs)

All of them. Refs 2, 3 and 7 only mention him by name, with nothing about him. Refs 1, 4, 5 and 6 are skimpy biosketches, basically primary information provided by Skunky. None of these are independent, published articles written about him. P.S. Although I recommended reverting to draft, I was not the editor who acted on that. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

A separate problem here. Per the contributions, you did not create the article, only moved if from draft to article. Why are you asking "Please specify which sources that are not reliable, in which I used." David notMD (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for assistance with an article you've helped edit

Greetings, David notMD. I appreciate the edits you've made to the page Johnathan Brownlee, both during the draft stage and this week. Because you are familiar with the page, I'm reaching out for counsel and assistance, if possible, with a roadblock I've encountered with removal of the COI tag. If I may, here is the "chronology":

This was my first article, and, in discussions with the first reviewer, I declared COI during the draft stage. This reviewer stated that the COI tag would remain on "until a neutral editor has scrubbed the article".

The article was scrubbed and moved into article space by another reviewer, who removed the COI tag, stating, "Checked every source, and the article appears to be neutral, as claims are referenced. Removing COI tag."

A third reviewer undid the tag removal, so I reached out on their talk page and shared what the previous two reviewers had stated. The reply was, "That's not my understanding of the tag, although you did the correct thing and submitted it through AfC. As it says at WP:COI, "Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. The COI tag is not there to show that there is a bias (there isn't in my opinion), but simply that a major contributor to the article has a COI. This is one of the reasons that COI editing is strongly discouraged. If another editor, without COI, removes the tag, I won't complain about it, but my interpretation of COI is that it should stay. Feel free to ask other editors, or an admin, or even post a question at WP:TEAHOUSE.

I clicked the Learn how and when to remove this template message within the COI tag, and read that "Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently" and could be removed by any user without COI when the issue has been adequately addressed.

I also posted at TEAHOUSE, and was advised, "It can definitely be removed from the article if it no longer is viewed as having a COI. A more permanent indication of connected contributors can be included on the Talk Page."

So, if your interpretation is that a) the purpose of the tag (neutral point of view) has been accomplished, b) that "connected contributor" status is established on the article's talk page, and c) that maintenance tags are not meant to be in articles permanently, I'm asking if you would mind reviewing the article and removing the tag.

I'll appreciate your input. MBAWilbins (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South Louisiana coastal erosion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. David notMD (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Pings and notifs

Hi, David not MD, I'm following the discussion at Talk:Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton, and just noticed that you addressed user Justlettersandnumbers without notifying them. If you want them to be alerted to your message, you need to either use a template like {{reply}} or {{ping}}, or wikilink their username, i.e., [[User:Justlettersandnumbers]]. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help from a new editor

Thank you for your help a few weeks ago in the Teahouse. Sorry for the delay, but things have been crazy. Gwen the Cat (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello David,

I have noticed that you have done some editing on Andrew Zerzan's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Zerzan Since you are an experienced editor I wanted to ask you for some help and advice. The page shows a notification "This biographical article is written like a résumé". How could I edit the page in a way that the tag gets removed? I've tried finding sources discussing Andrew's work but I haven't been successful in doing that. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks --Bbernardos (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I shortened the article a bit more and removed the tag. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you re.: [Francis Drake] citations

Thank you very much for your kind assistance to me with the citations message on Francis Drake. I saw your example and followed it to include additional messages. Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

I have noticed that the review-waiting line for my declined article has not shortened substantially since 2019 11 21. Then there were 3,717 pending submissions and a three-month minimum. a few weeks later, on 2019 12 09 there are 3,501 pending submissions waiting with a four-month or more expectation. Since the drafts are not reviewed in any specific order, is it possible that the article you helped me revise will never be reviewed?

We are now being solicited by wikipage services who claim they know how to get this submission accepted. One solicitor claimed that Wiki editors judge notability according a three-paragraph minimum of coverage in a reliable 3rd party article. My submission cites two newspaper articles that featured my company and easily meet this three-paragraph criterion, but the articles are behind paid firewalls, so I do not understand how Wiki editors will gain access to these articles to evaluate our submission fairly.

I hate bothering you, but is there anything you can tell me to allay my worries?DriverSafety (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no queue, nor any meaning behind articles not being reviewed for a relatively long time. There is no coordination among reviewers. Basically, they (all unpaid volunteers) just turn on their computers, look at the list, and see if there are any topics that trigger their curiosity, perhaps with a harder look at the older stuff. I read the age of unreviewed differently than you did. I see 3,502 total, of which 561 are between 2-3 months old, 211 between 3-4 months old, 35 between 4-5 months old, and none over 5 months. Your resubmission was September 16. Next week will be three months. I advise refraining from going to a paid advisor until there is a response to the resubmission. Reviewers accept on faith content that is behind paid firewalls. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your counsel.DriverSafety (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with article

Hi again David! You helped me a few months ago on an article I'm working on: Draft:Sano Genetics. I've been waiting to update it with further developments on the company, and we were recently featured in The Guardian. I've worked on many of the edits you suggested, including deleting sections, and I hope it looks better now. I was wondering, if you have a moment, if you had any further advice or comments on whether you think this new version would fulfil more of Wikipedia's criteria for an article. I really appreciate any help you can offer, and hope you're having a nice day! All the best, Clarealev (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

hi

I will take note of that, and have a very happy New Year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James The Bond 007 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about that edit, I thought i had canceled the rollback command, I was testing it, you can see this, because at the teahouse I had asked if this command was available for everyone. --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

~ Nice to meet you ~

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Just saying Hi! ~ nice to meet you ~~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I see you have been discussing my potentially disruptive edit, I can also see that you are upset about this, but keep in mind I was just testing out twinkle, and I meant no harm, and this is the first time I have deleted content on another editor's page, I hope you understand that this is a mistake, and won't happen again, as per your suggestion on Mitchellhobbs talk page I will focus on main space edits, please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions, I would also prefer to keep the conversation on my talk page. Happy Holidays! ----Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Vitamin B12

Note

Thanks for the note. I am fine with the revert if this is the belief of several Wikipedians. However, I will still make an edit to move the list of genera that produce vitamin B12 to the biosynthesis section. Cheers, Alsosaid1987 (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I make no claim to "owning: this article (see WP:OWN) even though I have worked on it prior to nominating it for Good Article review. You do have the option of starting a discussion at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vitamin B12

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vitamin B12 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vitamin B12

The article Vitamin B12 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Vitamin B12 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vitamin B12

The article Vitamin B12 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vitamin B12 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Vitamin B12

On 18 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vitamin B12, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that five people have received Nobel Prizes for direct and indirect studies of vitamin B₁₂? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vitamin B12. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vitamin B12), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)