User talk:LK1965

hi, I know you want to improve the article but please read [1] articles used as references should not be too old, you can also use position statements from WHO, NIH, NHS and medical textbooks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email and suggestion. I agree about your comments with regard to older references but some cases it may not be true - or does not apply in some cases. For example, here while updating this syndrome, my main focus was to provide overall information about this syndrome to include followings (actually this applies to all other syndromes) 1. Basic definition ( which will never change) and clinical and genetic variation (this will change and new mutations will be discovered and the readers would like to know about old mutations - some recent articles don't describe those old mutations published 8 or 10 years ago - that's why those results are needed) 2. the historical progression about discovery of this gene (that's why I provided positional cloning method information and references - these are the approaches used to find the genes - which I think is a great source of information to world wide readers -after hundred years they will say wow they used these methods to find the genes - also great learning opportunity - I just provided few words and references - which you deleted) 3. Current results - I added some new references that includes 2021 reference to keep the information current - i would still like to include some which you deleted - let me know

Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia’s articles LK1965 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(this isn't an email/its a post)ok here are

• books [2]
• here are some great sources from NIH [3] and [4]
• pubmed (specifically science direct) [5]
• other (this is a rare source-NORD that is very good for certain types of disorders) [6]

should you need further help, just ask (BTW as soon as you qualify Wikipedia library has many more great sources),--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am aware of all those sources - I worked for NIH - I had different concern about my edit - perhaps you did not get chance to read my earlier post - please read my above post - comment #2. You deleted two important information first, about the progression of research information that lead to discovery of BOR gene - a very important source of information for many students and researchers, and has historical importance , second, I provided reference for new localization of BOR gene on chromosome 11 - those are all valid references retrieved from the sources Wikipedia supports - again thanks for your hard work to make Wikipedia a great place. LK1965 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)... should you after a thorough search not find a more recent article, then go ahead and use those references (though not all references were 'historical')--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks - appreciate your comments as always - I will research more on those lines - if I find credible to add then I will update those perhaps in a week or so - all the best LK1965 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • In terms of your request for 2021 article Mehdizadeh, Tanya; Majumdar, Himani D.; Ahsan, Sarah; Tavares, Andre L. P.; Moody, Sally A. (30 June 2021). "Mutations in SIX1 Associated with Branchio-oto-Renal Syndrome (BOR) Differentially Affect Otic Expression of Putative Target Genes". Journal of Developmental Biology. 9 (3): 25.
    ISSN 2221-3759. Retrieved 15 November 2022.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)...in medical lit (and lab) this is a primary article, something that was done in a lab, per MEDRS we use reviews Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). The reason is b/c reviews cover a greater area of knowledge from several primary sources (again read MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Thanks - I don't have any concern about this reference - I updated this which provided most updated information thanks LK1965 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your quick review. When I posted this biography, I did make a note that for many old references, I could not find the link. However, most of the person's important discovery references are cited. The other references are not very relevant to his discovery; they only describe the history of his work. The work on the discovery of genes is very important; therefore, I will keep those in the references and move the other references under "selected publications," as in Elena E. Tucker's biography (please review that). When I was reviewing several biographies, many of them lacked important references or notability, etc., but still, unfortunately, all those pages are live in Wikipedia. The current biography, I believe, is the significant and inspirational one as it describes his discovery of two important genes; the information about those diseases is available on Wikipedia and is linked in the biography to provide readers with comprehensive details. Coming back to your concern about "some references," I agree and plan to move those references into the selected publication section just to reflect the volume of work. If you agree, moving those references to a different section should not take long—just cut and paste—and I would appreciate your assistance and edits. I also greatly appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia. Thanks LK1965 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed - several edits - looks better - review whenever you get chance and once done please move it to the article space - working on another biography Jeff Ellis in Wikipedia which is unfortunately incomplete but live - I added some new references and text - working on to complete that - thanks LK1965 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits and thank you very much; I have seen many biographies with references that are not linked but are manually entered, such as the one in the current biography; if you want to keep it that way, that's fine; otherwise, I will appreciate whatever you suggest. LK1965 (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll take a closer look at it in its new location and provide some commentary on the talk page there. P.P.S. The text here is a modification of the boilerplate provided by the 'MoveToDraft' tool.

I think that page was created in error; perhaps I wanted to link and clicked the wrong button. Thanks and I appreciate your contribution. LK1965 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheChunky was:

This submission does not appear to be written in

peacock terms

that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shrawan Kumar (geneticist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LK1965! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by

reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners

. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There is far too much unsupported content. In

articles on living people

, it is imperative that every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details are clearly supported by immediate inline citations to reliable published sources. Do not pile all the citations at the end of the paragraph or section, as this does not make it clear which source supports what information.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shrawan Kumar (geneticist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ahecht was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
  

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Someone who's highest position is "Associate Professor" or "Staff Scientist" is going to have to show extraordinary recognition in their field to meet the standards of

WP:NACADEMIC

. Routine grant funding and committee appointments isn't sufficient.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shrawan Kumar (geneticist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]