User talk:David notMD/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

S-Adenosyl methionine (SAM-e) article

You're doing a good job with that article, thank you. It's been on my watchlist for a while but I never got around to it! Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim - Thanks for the complement, especially after I blew up the SAMe article due to my ignorance of editing skills. When I am not amateurishly meddling in Wikipedia articles I advise supplement and functional food companies on the science needed to support the health statements they wish to make.David notMD (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC) So yes, nine years later I want to be clearer that my consulting clients are not paying me, or telling me, or asking me, or even aware, that I edit articles about dietary supplement ingredients. And that at least 300 individual edits have gone by since I had a hand in this. If I have anything to say I will do it in Talk, to avoid even an appearance of conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

David notMD, in the future, you can remove a maintenance tag at any time if you believe the issue has been addressed, as long as you explain why are you removing it either in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. There is no need for a formal evaluation. Please read Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems for more details on this. --Mysdaao talk 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Herb Greene

If Herb Greene is associated with Maynard, MA, there must be some documentation of that association. The best place for this is in Greene's Wikipeida article. Remember, the citation should be from an independent, reputable source. Books, magazines, and newspaper articles are great sources for these references. Thanks! Wkharrisjr (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I had coffee with him last week, does that count? He has lived in Maynard since 2000. I will see if I can find something that identifies him with Maynard that can be added to the Wikipedia entry. However, his own website identifies him in Maynard: http://www.herbgreenefoto.com/post/602250-first-encounter (see end of the item).David notMD (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally considered as not acceptable, but usually personal websites have been accepted for non-critical personal, so I would say a link to his website would be OK. Thanks! Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi David notMD. Your comment here leads me to want to open a discussion with you about conflicts of interest in Wikipedia. Along with content about health and medicine, I spend a bunch of time here helping manage COI, which involves lots of one on one discussion, which I hope you will be open to. Please don't be offended - this is just kind of a routine inquiry. I'll start by giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Information icon Hello, David notMD. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products; instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles see the edit request template

when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE); avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM); exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies. In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do). I hope that all seems reasonable to you, and I am guessing that based on your experience as a medical/scientific writer, it will not be strange.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia with regard to any of your work on dietary supplements? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog - I am not being paid, nor have ever been paid, nor expect to be paid, for any content I add to Wikipedia entries. I am, as I noted, a self-employed consultant to companies in the dietary supplement industry. Some of them do sell vitamins and supplements I have commented on. I have not informed any of them of my activities at Wikipedia, nor do I think any of them are aware of same. My intent in participating in Wikipedia has been to make entries factually correct and adequately referenced to high quality sources. My recent efforts (other than that stab at cinnamon) have been to standardize descriptions of Dietary Reference Intakes for various B vitamins. See www.dmarknutrition.com for my background. David notMD (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious reply. I hear you, that you are not paid to edit WP. Thanks for clarifying. I work a lot on articles about interventions - drugs and diagnostics, but also dietary supplements. There is so much frank bullshit out there, and it is so important that WP is not infected with dietary supplement industry marketing hype. I am sure you know what I mean - like the tidal wave of rank, fetid bullshit you get if you simply google HGH. I hope you are on the side of the angels when you edit. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog - Just so you know, my reputation within the industry is "'Dr. No', as in No, you can't claim that." And my contracts stipulate that none of my clients are allowed to use my name as a marketing tool. Going forward, I will take extra care to cover both sides of a position if there is not a consensus - and stick to what it cited rather than my own opinion. David notMD (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog - A request. I was reviewing the entry on methylsulfonylmethane. The article content is not that bad, but the Talk section is old and large. I have never tried to Archive a Talk section. Would you please look at this and decide if a large part of it should be archived?David notMD (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

sure! Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog - This weekend I am going to tackle an update on the purported health benefits of maca (Peruvian traditional medicinal plant) for women and men. I will be referencing only human trials. Probably do women first, as there is a good systemic review published in 2011. I would appreciate your looking at that once I've posted it, to see if it complies with Wikipedia guidelines on reliable medical sources. Thanks. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I take it you mean Lepidium meyenii? if so, i've watchlisted it. happy to look it over! Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that you have over edited in order to reach a conclusion not warranted by the clinical trials. While Lee correctly pointed out that the clinical trials failed to assess safety, all four reached statistical significance for reduction of menopause symptoms. Brooks and the last Meissner at P<0.05 and the other two Meissner trials at P<0.001. I agree with Lee's conclusion that the strength of the evidence is limited, but that is not the same as efficacy not known. Stojanovska is primary research. But its value is that it came after Lee and reported no benefit for menopause symptoms. We can discuss article content at the article if you like. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC) I'll add, that the question at the end of the day is "Can we generalize from this?" and the review is very clear that the answer to that is "no". Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

Your addition to the lead at dietary supplements didn't appear to add new information to the summary, rather it seemed to expound on information already contained within the lead. Also there are some style issues with the way you wrote a numbered list. Edaham (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

E - The lead as it was ignored the botanicals (which are also inadequately covered in the body of the article). I have no problem with style being changed to be more in accord with Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Nutrition and MEDRS

Could you give your thoughts about this, please? The editor is debating whether nutrition is governed by MEDRS. I looked through dozens of WT:MED archives and didn't find a specific discussion supporting nutrition as a MEDRS topic, although we all know it does. Issues I raised (or would raise) included:

the lede sentence mentions "maintenance, growth, reproduction, health and disease of an organism", which collectively imply MEDRS last lede paragraph mentions numerous diseases which result if nutrition is poor or absent, implying MEDRS DRIs are based on diseases which develop if a specific nutrient is absent, demonstrating MEDRS the other editor objected when I removed an opinion article which she wanted to use for a lede statement that the nutrition field is only "half-understood" by nutritionists and poorly understood by the public. I can agree to both assumptions, but the NYT article is a survey and opinion, not a MEDRS-quality review. Or do you feel there would be value in raising this with the community at WT:MED? Thanks.--Zefr (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt WT:MED has enough nutrition science professionals to merit raising the question. As someone who has labored in the field of nutrition for nigh on 40 years, I am of opinion that nutrition science should meet MEDRS. That too much of the science is in vitro, or animal (misused to reach conclusions about the human condition), or too-small clinical trials - is all true, but this does not mean that Wikipedia has to bend to every gust of wind. As to the NYT article in particular, my opinion is that it does not belong in the lede, nor anywhere in the article. The 'expert' side of the survey went to a subset of people in the nutrition field (members of American Society of Nutrition (predominantly PhDs)), and of the 5,000 members, only 672 replied. This self-selected small group is not representative of the expertise on nutrition. A different take on nutrition not being understood by 'nutritionists' is that there is no legal definition of the profession. Anyone who wants to can self-proclaim themselves a nutritionist.

SusanLesch has been remarkably busy on Wikipedia - >500 entries since the start of April, - but only in the recent few days and posts, nutrition or medicine. She does not appear to have any school education in the field of nutrition. David notMD (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Maynard, Massachusetts edits

Glad to help improve the Maynard articles and nice to see your work too. Hopefully we can keep improving it and creating related articles about relevant Maynard subject matter that is noteworthy, and sync them all together appropriately. Not sure how to balance discussion of the history section of the Town Maynard article with the mill article and Amory's article and the Maynard family. Some of the material seems to warrant it's own article. Swampyank (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly believe the content on the mill, and on Amory Maynard and his family, belong within the Maynard, Massachusetts article, which is not too long. I disagree with the need to create separate articles for Assabet Woolen Mill or Amory Maynard, but will not nominate those for deletion. David notMD (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to your comment about merging all of the articles with anything Maynard related (Amory Maynard, Maynard schools and library) into the Maynard town article, I understand that keeping everything in the Maynard article as a central site is a possibility and this seems preferable to you. However, I firmly believe the articles should remain separate and be allowed to grow separately; they'll be easier to find directly when Googled and for others to add information to them if they're separate, and by doing this, it won't cause the Maynard article to grow too large with minutiae that a general audience isn't interested in. Everyone that reads the Maynard article doesn't want to know every detail about Amory Maynard or the Maynard schools offerings, but most people are looking for a general idea about different aspects of the town, and can click on a further wikilink if they want more details about Amory or the schools, and they may want to add more specifics to those articles. There are articles on hundreds of Massachusetts schools, libraries, mills, and town founders that have grown very well with contributors interested in those niches. Wikipedia doesn't have an issue with space for more articles that I'm aware of, so I'd recommend keeping them separate and they'll all grow better and be cleaner in my opinion and experience. Swampyank (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Green Meadow School (elementary) and Fowler School (middle) now redirect to Maynard, Massachusetts. This appears to be the normal practice for schools that are not high schools and are not notable for being a historic building or other reason. High schools as article-worthy has also been questioned, but for the moment, Maynard High School remains its own article. David notMD (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Vitamins and minerals

Slogging away at improving content in Dietary recommendations (formerly Dietary reference intake). Intent is to get beyond USA-only for dietary recommendations. A much, much larger task would be to bring uniformity in format to the vitamins articles. David notMD (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

B vitamins completed. Next, the others (A, C, D, E, K) and then the nutritionally essential minerals.David notMD (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC) All vitamins done. Starting on the minerals. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC) All minerals done. David notMD (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Composition of fats in vegetable oils: table edit

This table appears in several articles, but it uses USDA Standard Release 24, which is several years out of date (now at SR 28 with different values in many cases). Do you know how to edit it? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The link actually goes to Standard Release 28 (Sept 2015), so the citation can be revised. At that USDA site it is possible to enter each oil individually and get the most recent (SR 28) values. For example, Avocado oil shows as 14.290% saturated, 71.430% monounsaturated and 14.290 polyunsaturated. It appears that the table cannot be edited in this article, but can be at Template:Vegetable oils, composition David notMD (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Once in the USDA database, its a slog. For example, enter avocado oil as a search term. Then, about 30 items down, will find entries for avocado oil or pure avocado oil from more than one source. Same with corn oil - have to drift down the list to find data for corn oil versus foods that contain corn oil. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Once you're in the USDA database at 'Food Search', choose "Standard Reference" from the upper left pick list to limit 'all data sources' and particularly exclude "Branded Food Products". SR is what we should be using for the encyclopedia. But, I agree, there isn't an apparent solution for editing the oil composition table. I'll invite Primefac to evaluate after the successful revision of the nutrient table template. --Zefr (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been in this field long enough to remember when the USDA table had no branded products. David notMD (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't updating the table simply require editing

Properties of vegetable oils
The nutritional values are expressed as percent (%) by mass of total fat.

Type	Processing treatment	Saturated fatty acids	Monounsaturated fatty acids		Polyunsaturated fatty acids				Smoke point
			Total	Oleic acid (ω−9)	Total	α-Linolenic acid (ω−3)	Linoleic acid (ω−6)	ω−6:3 ratio
Avocado		11.6	70.6	52–66	13.5	1	12.5	12.5:1	250 °C (482 °F)
Brazil nut		24.8	32.7	31.3	42.0	0.1	41.9	419:1	208 °C (406 °F)
Canola		7.4	63.3	61.8	28.1	9.1	18.6	2:1	204 °C (400 °F)
Coconut		82.5	6.3	6	1.7	0.019	1.68	88:1	175 °C (347 °F)
Corn		12.9	27.6	27.3	54.7	1	58	58:1	232 °C (450 °F)
Cottonseed		25.9	17.8	19	51.9	1	54	54:1	216 °C (420 °F)
Cottonseed	hydrogenated	93.6	1.5		0.6	0.2	0.3	1.5:1
Flaxseed/linseed		9.0	18.4	18	67.8	53	13	0.2:1	107 °C (225 °F)
Grape seed		10.4	14.8	14.3	74.9	0.15	74.7	very high	216 °C (421 °F)
Hemp seed		7.0	9.0	9.0	82.0	22.0	54.0	2.5:1	166 °C (330 °F)
High-oleic safflower oil		7.5	75.2	75.2	12.8	0	12.8	very high	212 °C (414 °F)
Olive (extra virgin)		13.8	73.0	71.3	10.5	0.7	9.8	14:1	193 °C (380 °F)
Palm		49.3	37.0	40	9.3	0.2	9.1	45.5:1	235 °C (455 °F)
Palm	hydrogenated	88.2	5.7		0
Peanut		16.2	57.1	55.4	19.9	0.318	19.6	61.6:1	232 °C (450 °F)
Rice bran oil		25	38.4	38.4	36.6	2.2	34.4	15.6:1	232 °C (450 °F)
Sesame		14.2	39.7	39.3	41.7	0.3	41.3	138:1
Soybean		15.6	22.8	22.6	57.7	7	51	7.3:1	238 °C (460 °F)
Soybean	partially hydrogenated	14.9	43.0	42.5	37.6	2.6	34.9	13.4:1
Sunflower		8.99	63.4	62.9	20.7	0.16	20.5	128:1	227 °C (440 °F)
Walnut oil	unrefined	9.1	22.8	22.2	63.3	10.4	52.9	5:1	160 °C (320 °F)

? It's not protected so anyone can change things. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it would mean finding each oil in the USDA database, then revising the information in the template - a slow chore. David notMD (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I was going off the isn't an apparent solution for editing the oil composition table comment. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That was actually Z's comment, not mine. But he has come around to it being doable, just tedious. David notMD (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes, thanks to Primefac for pointing out the obvious which I missed. While David is busy with edits on nutrient recommendations, I'll tackle the veg oil template in the near future. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Refs

Please do not removed refs such as you did here. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the benefit of having multiple referencing to the same reference within a paragraph when there are no other refs in the string of sentences, but I will cease. David notMD (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Fluoride

Thank you for the contribution to fluoride. Here are some semi-random comments on some of the pages you have worked on.

It is good that you include both US and Europe info. Many US editors seem to be blind to the fact that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. For example, they assume that the FDA speaks for everyone. I often am adding "U.S." to "FDA."

Fluoride-related articles can be periodically contested (not really controversial) because the antifluoride editors can be nutty and obssessive. These arguments have spawned many fluoridation-related articles. Some of these article would benefit from citations to mainstream dental textbooks. When it comes to medical-dental themes, textbooks are often better (more convincing) than tech reviews.

The chromium dietary articles (see especially chromium picolinate) occasionally seem to used to promote dietary supplements, a multi-billion $ industry. Evidence for Cr requirement is thin at best, as the papers by Vincent seem to show.

Keep up the good work. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Smokefoot - Thanks. I am slogging through the vitamins (done) and essential minerals (almost done) to standardize the U.S. and EU recomnendations, with appropriate citations. Not intending to add any more to fluoride, as yes, it is a topic with strong opinions, while I have no special knowledge nor any opinion. I agree that the dietary supplement industry wants to differentiate among delivery systems, and that sometimes bleeds over into Wikipedia articles. Which is why I agree that secondary sources, preferably from good peer-reviewed journals, are needed. David notMD (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Lab Tests Online

Hi David, I have disclosed everything this morning. I didn't disclose it before as I didn't know I had to. This was the first time I was updating Wikipedia content and I didn't get familiar with the rules. Sorry about that --Wcn.content (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wcn.content Some of the editors here can be - terse - so at times I try to add a less caustic comment. Welcome to Wikipedia's steep end of the learning curve. David notMD (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Queen's University Student Editing

Hi David notMD, I am helping Heather with her class and noticed your messages related to the peanut allergy article.

The students have completed an assignment that consisted of a "critique" of the current Wikipedia article, however, this is not what they will be editing on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editing portion of the class will be as follows:

Oct 31st- Each group (including the peanut allergy group) will compile a suggested list of approximately 6 new citations that will follow WP:MEDRS and will add to the evidence base of the article. These citations will either substantiate content that is already in the Wikipedia article or add new information (1-2 new sentences per citation added, as necessary). Once the groups have posted their suggestions on the talk pages of their articles, they will wait to gather community feedback/consensus. At this time Heather will post a short message on the talk page of WikiProject Medicine to let the editing community know that these suggestions have been made on the talk pages. If you have any suggestions on how to ensure that we work with the community in a positive and productive manner, we would greatly appreciate them!

Given that the students are not making major changes to the articles, I feel that we can work together to improve the Peanut Allergy article. The students will add the new evidence/citations around November 15th and will be finished by November 20th. If you have any further questions, comments, or feedback please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

My note was to acknowledge that I had been doing some extensive editing on peanut allergy, including removing and adding references, and so was planning to hold off through end of November so as to not preempt some of the changes the students may intend. In passing, you might mention to the students that removing content can be as useful as adding content. Sometimes there is text that is not supported by existing citations, and appropriate citations cannot be found. David notMD (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Great idea and advice. Thanks very much! We are all learning and appreciate feedback like this. Jenny

JenOttawa (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

JenOttawa On Dr. Murray's Talk she asked if I could look at the content to date that the students have posted. One comment (for the peanut allergy group, but perhaps the whole class) - I see that so far they have been mostly selecting references for which the abstract is free but accessing the full article would require a purchase (it's behind a 'paywall'). I suggest that when searches are conducted, perhaps via PubMed, the students try add Free full text as a filter, to see if that still provides useful citations. Free access to full text is preferred, but not a requirement. One reason for this is that an abstract may promise what the text does not deliver. The person adding a citation should be seeing the text. And a subsequent editor, who may doubt the content, should be able to access the same text without paying for it. Finally, a small thing. When you sign your name via four tildes, it can be a space after end of your text rather than next line. David notMD (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Jen - Although I promised to leave the students a quiet time, first Zefr and now Doc James appear to be stepping in. So just tell the students they are working on a moving target. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hey David notMD. Student editing is ... a thing. I don't know where it got started but it did. I guess at a high level, it is supported out of the hope that some students will end up becoming editors, and because maybe we can get some good content.

Wikipedia:Student assignments has some info about how the community approaches it especially the Advice for editors section ...

Some classes go better than others. Some go very badly. Classes are offered training in the WP basics, and some students do better than others at paying mind to the training.

In my experience, most student editing is pretty poor, and they tend to write big clumps of content that they want to insert into an article (the closest thing they can to writing an assignment and handing it in) and sometimes they can be very dickish about defending that chunk of content - the COI becomes extremely clear in those cases -- regardless of how well it complies with the content policies (UNDUE/NPOV, well-sourced, etc) or is even decent encyclopedic writing.

But students are obligated to follow all the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and neither you nor anybody else, has any obligation to stay out of their way nor to help them, and if they act badly they can be brought to EWN or ANI or whatever. They are WP editors at the end of the day.

The Education Foundation people are paid to help classes, and of course the class will have its own instructor and TAs who are paid by the school. Classes will very happily start to treat you like a TA if you make yourself available in that way. If you want to step into that role, that is your choice and fine, and if you don't want to that is fine too.

If you want to stay out of their way, or treat their content like you would any other, that too is OK. You have no obligation to stop the work you were doing on that article. If you want to, that is fine too.

Student editing is a thing; we have no clear or set way of dealing with it, or with classes. The Education Program mainpage is at Wikipedia:Education_program if you have never checked it out. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Jtydog - In this instance it appears this class has a Wikipedia-experienced editor (JenOttowa) looking over their shoulder, and a plan to A) be cautious, and B) propose all changes in the articles' Talk and then await comments before editing the articles. I hope that is all true, as it's not just peanut allergy (an article I have been planning to get into after milk allergy), but also other topics that have serious traffic: frostbite, kidney failure, gangrene, urinary retention, neural tube defect, Munchausen syndrome, etc. So fingers crossed. David notMD (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

:) yes! Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Food allergies

Working on revising and better referencing for common food allergies. I have no conflict of interest for any products or methods for preventing or treating allergies. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Egg allergy nominated for Good Article. David notMD (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Egg allergy achieved Good Article status. On to Milk allergy! David notMD (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Vitamin C and COI issue

Working on with intent to nominate this for Good Article. COI issue: As a science consultant to dietary supplement companies I have clients that sell vitamin C containing products. None of them have asked me to edit the vitamin C article, nor are aware that I am doing so. I will not be adding or modifying any content about any branded products. Refs I add will comply with MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Nominated vitamin C for Good Article review. David notMD (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ref every line

This is a reasonable option. It prevents people from adding a "citation needed" tag. And if text gets moved around prevents confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Food allergy into Protein (nutrient). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for advice and for doing the attribution for the copying into protein (nutrient). I will look back at past contributions and keep that in mind going forward. (I added an attribution for copying into Egg allergy.) There are instances in the past where I wrote new content in one article and then copied it into another (amongst vitamins, amongst minerals that are essential nutrients, amongst allergies to certain foods). From your note I am not required to attribute in those instances. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ordering of sections[1]

Typically follows WP:MEDMOS.

Looking at food allergy if followed the prior order? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I like Epidemiology before Prevention and Treatment and those two as a combined section, but I can see the merit of the order in the Food allergy example. As long as we can be consistent. I will reorder egg and milk, which are the ones I am actively working on, then get to soy, tree nut, etc., as I get to those. David notMD (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes the recommended order is at WP:MEDMOS for that consistency. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Peanut Allergy article

Hi David notMD, I just wanted to draw your attention to an edit that I noticed today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peanut_allergy&type=revision&diff=808438668&oldid=808436428

This looks like the first edit from this IP address. I reverted it, is there anything else that needs to be done? Thanks, Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That was full-crazy. Appreciate your catching the edit. If the IP persists, may need to get a warning to that person's Talk page. And if really persists, a block. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for taking the time to be kind. You have no idea how deeply appreciated your kindness it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Egg allergy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Egg allergy 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 AmericanAir88 -- AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Egg allergy

On 5 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Egg allergy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that more than two-thirds of children with egg allergy will outgrow it by the time they are 16 years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Egg allergy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Egg allergy), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vitamin C

Hello! Your submission of Vitamin C 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! Yoninah (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Siege of Chittorgarh (1567-1568), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

My edit - an addition of 15 words to explain what jauhar means, was so people would not have to leave the article about the siege to learn what this term describes. Removed, the Wikilink remains, so no loss of content, just an interruption of flow. David notMD (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I know your edits were in Wikipedia:Good faith, but I'm just telling that the wikilink is there for details. e.g if in one article another term is mentioned, it is not mentioned in details. If we add the 15 word explanation in every article, then whats the use of the wikilinks? If anyone is interested in knowing about the term, they can simply click and get all the details. Wikilinks are made in the first place for brevity and ease of use. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been editing since 2006, have almost 6,000 edits, and stand by the idea that a 15 word description of term very likely to be unfamiliar to English-speaking readers is an appropriate addition to the Siege article, and not an overly lengthy duplication of what is in the 1,600+ word Jauhar article. David notMD (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I respect your contirbutions to wikipedia, but I am just pointing out that an article has to be concise and to the point. e.g if we are talking about George I, the Jacobites are mentioned in the article and it is "In reaction, Jacobites attempted to depose George and replace him with Anne's Catholic half-brother, James Francis Edward Stuart, but their attempts failed." not In reaction, Jacobites - political movement in Great Britain and Ireland that aimed to restore the Roman Catholic Stuart King James II of England and Ireland attempted to depose George and replace him with Anne's Catholic half-brother, James Francis Edward Stuart, but their attempts failed. Besides, thousands of people visit the English wikipedia from different countries and few are likely to know the term Jacobites, which is why the wikilink is there, it will take a simple click to navigate to Jacobites. I believe that if an article already exists, it should not be described in 15 words or detail. We can write self-immolation in brackets next to Jauhar but not a 15-word explanation. See H:L for more information. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Updating maintenance tags

Hello again David. Would you humour me once more by having a think about this edit, please? I can see that you want to make the point that the referencing still needs improving, but when you change the date on a maintenance tag, you give the appearance that the concern has only been raised recently (whereas in this case it's been there for close on 10 years). Now you could argue that a maintenance tag (whose purpose is to attract editors to fix problems) that's been in place for 10 years has failed in its purpose, so we might as well not bother with it, but it remains one way of recording deficiencies in our article. Anyway, I'd always recommend leaving dates on maintenance tags alone, and making your point in a new section on the talk page. I know that probably takes longer, but if you eventually take an axe to the unreferenced sections, you at least have the evidence of a 10-year-old tag and a note on the talk page to justify your action. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Understood. And yes, my intent was to make the maint tag current. My concern was that someone might delete without looking at the situation, just becasue it was so old. David notMD (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Vitamin C content

you are correct, instead of adding we should reduce examples of fruit and vegetable containing vitamin c , but the problem is Guava is much more important,( in terms of availability in large section of the world and vitamin c content) than wolf berry . I hope my edit will not be reverted this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooltunir (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Made the swap because world guava production (>30 million tons) far exceeds Goji production (<0.2 million tons). David notMD (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Food allergy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Prebiotic

Milk allergy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Prebiotic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

fixed by making link point to prebiotic (nutrition) David notMD (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Industrial melanism

Hi David, I've replied to all your comments. I'm hoping to wrap up the review tomorrow before the holiday period, so if you could indicate that you're done that would be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Data granularity

Hi David. I've just reverted two of your edits to Factitious disorder imposed on self: [2], [3]. I know you're trying to improve the citations in that article, which are anything but consistent, but reducing the amount or granularity of information is not an improvement. It is easier for third-parties to scrape |first= and |last= than |vauthors=, so when somebody has taken the time to separate first and last names, please don't undo their good work. Similar considerations go for reducing given names to initials and abbreviating the full name of a journal. This isn't a paper encyclopedia and we don't have to save space by throwing away information. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vitamin C

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vitamin C 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A word in your ear: please limit discussion of the article under review to the GA review page while the review is in progress. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On a biosynthesis diagram, I'd have thought all we needed was a map of the reactants (could be shown as boxes or circles, say) with arrows over the enzymes (shown as triangles, so the arrow runs along the horizontal edge of the tool/enzyme) to connect'em. I can easily make one of those. Or, if there are chemical figures of the reactants, I can just paste them in, but it'd prob. look silly unless we have a complete set. What d'you think? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

At first look, what you did looks great. I see no need to have a chem structure for every intermediate step.

Still not intending to get back to article in a big way until Saturday. David notMD (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Well this has surprised me by being a bit of a marathon (take home: get the discussions over before the GA next time). I've taken the liberty of looking up a ref on Tarsiers and striking the associated comments. I've also grouped the biology sections together as they just looked odd split up. Therefore, all that remains is for you to check you're happy with the lead as a summary, and if not to extend it (with citations, per the med. policy). Then let me know and I'll close things out. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I will rewrite the lead (with citations) to match the order and content. In a few moments will be adding a bit to Absorption/Transportation/Excretion to replace text that was removed as it had no citation. Turns out all tissues have ascorbic acid concentration much higher than plasma, and much higher than the micromolar concentration needed to function as a coenzyme, so best guess is as yet unknown functions that require more. I will NOT be going into that. I may also try to further clean up evolution and antioxidant, but lead revision first! If that gets us to GA, great!! David notMD (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What Counts as Suitable Sources

Hi David,

Today, you commented on my rejected draft (Gilson (company)), saying that several of the sources are not suitable because they are not independent enough from the subject of the article. Thank you for your comments. Several of the pages I based the Gilson one on cite sources that come directly from those companies' websites. In your opinion, could you tell me what the following pages are doing right?

Eppendorf (company) Thermo Fisher Scientific Merck Millipore

Thank you! Cglife.bmarcus (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just because an article exists does not make it a good model. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for descriptions of what counts as notability. For the examples you provided, none of the references for Eppendorf (company) are appropriate and the entire article should be revised. For Thermo Fisher, many of the citations are TFS press releases, and should be removed, and the content supported by those press releases, ditto. Merck - its own press releases, ditto. I shortened Merch Millipore by 20%, but really, all that Milestones crap should go, and editors not associated with Merch Millipore start afresh. David notMD (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milk allergy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Milk allergy 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 AmericanAir88 -- AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Vitamin C

On 10 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vitamin C, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1934 vitamin C was the first synthetic vitamin to be trademarked (as Redoxon) and marketed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vitamin C. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vitamin C), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Valentine medicine

Thank you for quality articles on medical and nutritional topics such as vitamin C and egg allergy, based on scientific knowledge in Nutritional Biochemistry, for improving articles such as Valentine, for service from 2007, - David, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Food allergy articles

Hi David, I added a few Cochrane Reviews to the Food allergy and Milk allergy articles from my list of Cochrane Reviews not yet cited in WP articles. Please feel free to edit as you see fit with the style of the articles. Good luck with your project. Thanks again for the note! JenOttawa (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations

Congratulations on your hard work on getting Milk allergy to GA status. I am very proud of your dedication to solving the edit war and the work you put into solving the issues. I strongly encourage FA status for this and the others I have reviewed. Please do not hesitate to ask for any more reviews or questions. See you around! AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milk allergy

The article Milk allergy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Milk allergy 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 AmericanAir88 -- AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold

On 21 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1928 Charles Demuth painting I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold appeared on a US postage stamp in 2013? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Very nice work on this delicious DYK. I’ve had three paintings so far that have made the cut, two of which also became Featured Pictures; I’m researching a fourth potential DYK/FP at the moment, an article on George Bellows 1907 painting known as “Frankie, The Organ Boy”, currently up for FP consideration. I sheepishly admit, I have some kind of curse of late which has put me off of pre-WWII European art, which I would never want to collect myself (and cannot even look at lately), because everything I once enjoyed inevitably turns out to have been looted! I have a Midas Touch for Holocaust Awareness, and I’m almost not joking... But theft has not generally been a problem for recent American art — though Native Americans could rightly raise an objection to that statement — but at least the Demuth’s provenance is indisputable, and the painting a true favorite and inspiration of mine since the age of seven (it appears in color, I think, in The World Book Encyclopedia of 1972). Added to that, the poetry of Dr. Williams is an ongoing adult (occulted) pleasure. So much depends on editors like you putting the pieces together. Much appreciated. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I've opted out of this "discussion" and I hope you will too. It's a complete waste of time when we could be doing more useful things. Deb (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

James Michalopoulos

I appreciate the attention you gave to the article that isn't even mine yet haha James has found success in many areas and eventually I will capture all that in an appropriate wiki way - I am procuring permissions to put images of his artwork up and i want to chronicle his growth in a biographically interesting way - I will also flesh out the rum connection more, when I finally get a chance to actually add to the article - he brought a french perfume still to the us twenty two years ago and from that built what is now the oldest rum distillery in the country - his product is getting worldwide notoriety and is another chapter in a stellar career - his twenty year blend got the highest rating from two different neutral agencies and gingeroo has become a thing - so i respectfully propose that he is becoming a renowned rum-maker despite your judgements - he also started a food bank in boston that is still going thirty years later - these are remarkable - in other words, worthy of remark - but here is the thing -- i can't edit anything! Missvain (talk) has put some kind of thing on the page - and i dont know how to proceed - i addressed her questions on her talk page and i can't get an answer -- how can i stop talking ABOUT what i want to create and actually create it? thank you so much for your time and attention. Mikkopresents (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Milk allergy

On 14 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Milk allergy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Milk allergy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Milk allergy), 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) 00:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Amusing username coincidence

Hi David, I just noticed your edit to Arthur Godfrey on my watchlist, and the first thing I thought when I read your username was ... that reminds me of My name is not dave! Two usernames involving Davids and containing the word "not". That amused me greatly for some reason ... crazy, I know ... carry on. Graham87 14:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

My name is not Rodney, either... talk to !dave 21:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL! There's also more fun on my talk page. David notMD, did you see my second reply there? Graham87 12:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Dianna Hutts Aston

ok i'm creating my own page from scratch - its in draft right now - is there a way you can look at it? or do i have to submit it for review first? thanks Mikkopresents (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I enter Draft:Dianna Hutts Aston is Search Wikipedia and it goes to your draft. Rather than comment at my Talk or your Talk, I will comment at the Talk for the draft. David notMD (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No prob on vitamin E

I dont have a problem with your reverting my edit on the Alzheimer part of vitamin E. You might be able to resolve the problem that I was attempting to repair, especially if you have a biomedical background. Some of the article strives to explain stuff to the reader (like what is Alzheimers). That kind of content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Let me know if I can help. My main interest is that molecular basics be mentioned in a general way.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am revising/restoring the other content, but attempting to be more concise. My own area of interest is nutritional biochemistry and health claims. I agree that the article needs more on mechanism of action and chemistry, and the whole business of tocopherol equivalents. Would definitely welcome seeing edits there. Maybe copying images and text from Tocopherol. A few months back I shifted vitamin C from B-class to Good Article, so looking at that as a model for what is missing from this article. David notMD (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Smokefoot By the way, nice diagram add. David notMD (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It is sometimes amazing what core material is missing in these articles. Part of the problem is that these articles have grown organically usually by accretion vs dramatic rewrites by pros. Articles on health-related topics seem often to have been written by well intentioned but misguided zealots and, for lack of a better term, hippies. In some cases, marketers appear to be involved. My favorite is chromium deficiency, for which scant evidence exists, but is the basis of what I hear is a multimillion dollar industry. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that you and I (and Zefr) have taken swings at Chromium deficiency in the past. I agree that between people from companies that sell supplements and people who believe everything, vitamins, minerals and non-nutrient dietary supplement ingredients all need more work - including deletions and rewrites. Short term, I want to see Vitamin E get to point it is worthy of a GA nomination, then hope for editors to state what is still needed. David notMD (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ack! You reminded me that I was not happy with where Chromium deficiency left off. David notMD (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Chromium deficiency

Thank you very much for trusting me. I'll take a look as soon as I can. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vitamin B3

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitamin B3—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I'll sit back and watch a while. Vitamin articles should exist as separate articles or as major sections in the corresponding chemical articles because of the human/animal interest. By definition they're all essential for human survival. That is a somewhat different topic scope than merely the chemical/physical properties, how they are synthesised, etc. Donama (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

please do not tell me to clamp down.

I just asked a very simple question and you are telling me to clamp down hmm that was not right so I hope we don't have argument over this thank you and good day.hello nice to meet you. 21:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adultcartoonlover56 (talk • contribs)

@Adultcartoonlover56: - hopefully David notMD won't mind if I play talk page stalker on this one, but he did not tell you to clamp down, in any way, shape or form. He was referring, humorously, to my misspelling of "clamp-down" (clam-down), asking if I was intentionally referring to Clams in my comment (I was not, if that was unapparent). You have seemingly misinterpreted him on this one, as far as I can see, and as such I would kindly ask you to use the following template (<s></s>) to strike your confrontational comment above. Please remember to assume good faith in other editors. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Or just leave it. I can bear the burden of false accusation. David notMD (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brown-tail moth

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brown-tail moth you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Your suggestions

1#First of all , I am a newbie for wikipedia editing. I just joined four days ago , still not familiar with a lot of technical aspects of editing , so , somewhat learning in the process , and also using Android not PC 2# Edit history shows a lot of amateur editors have edited this earlier and pro editing took place few years back with only filmography being pro edited now a days along with few important facts based edits and false edit reverts.3# I just came across a poorly written OUTDATED article on the wikipedia titled Manjari Fadnis , so , I thought that I could add a lot of fresh relevant material. Manjari is none of my relative nor I am being paid 4#As per your suggestion , certain unnecessary non factual introductory information I have removed that belongs to my own edits relative to her recent interview but I won't delete edits made by others which they lifted from media interviews if the celebrity concerned 5#I also referred to other wikipedia articles for catching the extra information, and also observed similar biographies for writing ways and few technical aspects alongwith the existing source code in the current article itself 6#I added a lot of missing information and corrected or slightly extended the existing ones and can still add a few 7#the page had reference issues , having only four references added 3 yrs back probably , so I added as many references as I could in a hurry which were relevant to the lines where they have been added 8#If I need to provide reference for each and every fact added , then please inform which could be tedious even , so adding in general , but all this information is fully correct as the subject is a public figure , so , information is easily available on the social media , news , web articles , YouTube etc 8#People have even written long essays in other living person biographies so this piece of information is very small comparatively9#I tried to add photos but wikimedia doesn't accept copyright material which could have a good pictorial reference 10# But yes , article needs to be rewritten by a pro content writer. Crispgatoglitz (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The most important part of your statement is that you have no personal connection with Manhaji, nor are being paid. Those are serious conflict-of-interest matters that need to be transparent. When new editors show up and are editing almost exclusively one article, this is a common cause. Referencing is about quality, not quantity. Information from the person's own website, or interviews with, or social media, YouTube, NOT considered appropriate. What is true, i.e., "fully correct," does not matter. What matters is there being independent, published sources to cite. What I deleted were statements that had no citations and were unlikely to ever have citations. Wikipedia is not about pro writers. The vast majority are volunteers. David notMD (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

AND WHERE DID THIS COME FROM?

I have no idea where that idea of plagiarism on MY part came from. It was suggested about the Goldberg article. In any case I assure you that there was no plagiarism and I am mystified. I removed my comments from the article's talk page since the article is now going through the AFD process. Nicodemus (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not from me. My comment about possible copyright violation was reflecting what V had written about the article's author, not you. Also, and very important, editors are never supposed to remove content from article Talk. From your own Talk, yes. From article Talk, no. I reversed your deletion. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Brown-tail moth The article Brown-tail moth you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Brown-tail moth 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Actias luna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moon moth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hi, David. You have posted the statement "SBDFB joined Wikipedia 31 July and has already been blocked for vandalism" on the talkpages of four new users. None of them are called SBDFB or joined on July 31 or have been blocked for vandalism, so perhaps you made some copypaste mistake (?). Please self-revert. Here's one of them — I expect you can find the others. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of Actias luna

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Actias luna you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luna moth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Echolocation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Rotman draft

Regarding Rotman in Google, please enter "boris rotman -school -management." You should get about 49,700 answers. Thank you. Autoctono~enwiki 01:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but just looking at the first 100 or so, no articles ABOUT him. David notMD (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Brown-tail moth

Updated DYK query.svg On 21 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brown-tail moth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that hairs shed by caterpillars of the brown-tail moth can be wind-blown and cause a rash similar in appearance and itchiness to poison ivy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brown-tail moth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Brown-tail moth), 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Luna moth

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Luna moth 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! JGHowes talk 23:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

maintenance article template

( Ogmany (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC) ) Hello, Got the notability maintenance article template you put on my new article on Ellen Levy. Would appreciate any insights you have to offer. As far as I can tell there are a whole lot of very reliable news sources, most of the time with articles strictly on Ellen Levy and her work including from the NY Times, the Brooklyn Rail, and Scientific American. There are two things I have been wrestling with, one is the NASA art project and its citations. Since the subject's commission with them was very early on in their program, the 1980s, and there is not a lot of coverage of it. I put up footnotes 2 and 3 that refer to the early years of the art program NASA and the curator who created the program, there is no mention of Levy but I thought they were valid citations since there is very little on the early days of that program available anywhere. In fact I was going to check library news databases to see if I could find anything more direct.

On reviewing in light of your template I realize that I put the citation, #4, that directly covers Levy's participation in the program, a NY Times article on Levy that states " A catalogue photograph depicts Ms. Levy in the mid-1980's, working on a NASA commission and looking every inch the wholesome positivist in dungarees and a NASA cap." at the end of the next sentence and not directly after the NASA mention. The photo they refer to is on her website but I did not add it since there was no citation and on top of that, it was from her personal website. I was going to move that #4 citation to go immediately after #2, an article that covers the NASA art program and mentions the first curator, and #3, which is the exhibition catalogue that curator wrote that covers Levy's work, which the NYTimes quote refers too, so there was a direct quote from a reputable news source, not just a credit in Levy's bio that is used in many of the articles from reliable news source.

(In fact Levy is such a prescient pioneer I was considering adding a quote from that 1995 NY Times article "whose fascination with technology is not only tinged by skepticism but also rivaled by an interest in the acts of God that are sometimes visited on grand technological schemes -- witness the Challenger." but was trying to restrain from quotes because I thought Wiki did not care for them. Now I think it is even more valid to use the quote to illustrate how ahead of the curve she is. Also, frankly, there are so many reliable source quotations on Levy's exhibitions and work that I had a hard time figuring what to choose and decided not to add a whole lot more citations on individual exhibitions since there were so many reliable source citations already. I have a hard time not adding citations.) I will wait for your reply before making these changes and look forward to it. Thank you.

I left a comment at the Talk page for the Ellen Levy article. Better to have a discussion there. David notMD (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Looked for your comment but could not find it. Another editor gave me some great insights though and I worked on the article, added more primary reliable sources too since I think it maps out the artist's career and notability more clearly. I removed the template, according to the instruction page, unfortunately I said removed a maintenance template in the edit comment but meant the notability template.Ogmany (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Luna moth

Updated DYK query.svg On 13 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luna moth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the long tails on the hindwings of the Luna moth (pictured) are thought to interfere with echolocation detection used by predatory bats? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luna moth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Luna moth), 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. Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Multi-tip scanning tunneling microscopy

Dear David,

thank you for answering my quesions in the teahouse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Copyright_violation

"A copyright checking program indicated that there is direct copying and close paraphrasing from this website. http://www.fz-juelich.de/pgi/pgi-3/EN/Forschung/Nanostructures/Multi_tip_STM_development/Multi_tipSTMdevelopment_node.html "

This is not a surprise as this is the website of the intsitute where I work. I have asked the copyright holder: Research Center Jülich and they granted the permission to use the material from the website above in Wikipedia. Therefore, I think the copyright issue is resolved now.

However, since I am new in Wikipedia, I do not know how I can restore / move / redirect the page Multi-tip scanning tunneling microscopy to its original place? Can you (again) help with this?

Best regards

Bert Voigtlaender — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Voigtlaender (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

At the bottom of the draft there is a box that states the draft is in the bin of articles to be reviewed before being either moved to Wikipedia or rejected. This could happen any time over the next weeks to months (it's not a queue). I am not a qualified reviewer. The copyright issue is not resolved, and could lead to not only rejection, but deletion of your draft. STRONGLY preferred that you find a way to write the content in your own words. What I did was go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ and once there, entered the name of the article Draft:Multi-tip scanning tunneling microscopy. That creates side-by-side columns showing what texts were copied or only lightly paraphrased. Another problem is that there are HUGE sections of text with no citations at all. This is grounds for rejection. I did some copyediting. David notMD (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Marsh Hawk Press

Have been reviewing articles I have written in light of editors suggestions about my writing style. In fact you were one of the editors I interacted with. Why did you remove a list of well known judges of a well known poetry contest, that had a reliable source citation in an article that was already reviewed? Those judges are heavy hitters in the poetry world and the contest is well know. I could of put in more citations about the contest in fact. (29 August 2018‎ David notMD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,881 bytes) (-518)‎ . . (→‎Awards and manuscript selection: deleted list of contest judges) And then you put a notability maintenance template on the article, which had already been reviewed. Why? (Ogmany (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC))

Vis-a-vis Marsh Hawk Press, my opinion is that listing contest judges does not add to the notability of the press. Note that I did leave intact the artistic board of writers, as that more directly confers notability. If any of those are Wikipedia editors and wish to remove the notability template I will not contest. David notMD (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maynardville, Tennessee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Fixed David notMD (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

LiamTheFirst

David, Thank you! I am learning all this now... I promise to act by the rules from now on..

LiamTheFirst (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)