Talk:Michael Merzenich

Assessment

UCSF needs to be spelled out the first time; more wikilinks should be included to link to relevant topics. Also needs a proper WP:LEAD and could use an appropriate infobox. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments over therapies

The biography page is not appropriate for analysis of whether these therapies work, or not. The page is about the person referenced. If you want to add content to Wikipedia that consists of reliable third party sourced material about efficacy of Posit Science's product, please create a page on Posit Science's product. And be aware that all reliable third party material is highly desired, that material added should stick closely to the third party sources, and that the type of original research that you had added to this page is not what Wikipedia is about. If their product does not generalize to real life situations, AND there are third party references that state as much, you should include should material. If it is your own interpretation, that is original research (no matter how much of an expert you are). If you are an expert on this material, then it should be no problem to cite your own material published in reliable third party sources. There are a host of guidance pages that will help you edit appropriately at WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V. Please also note that the Brain fitness page already has a section with some third party reliably-sourced material on brain fitness training products including the UFOV - which is now party of Posit Science's products. Happy editing, and please do not be dissuaded - material from reliable third party sources is highly desired - but Wikipedia is not the place to create new material - only to collect and refer to already published material. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest Alert

Question to Animal Researcher: Do you have a financial conflict of interest here? Do you have a financial connection to SLC? Wikipedia bio entries are not supposed to be edited by people with financial conflicts of interest. If you continue to delete content because of this, be aware that your behavior may become public. I have no financial conflict of interest relating to SLC nor to any of their competitors--I am contributing to these pages to help prevent Wikipedia being misused as a venue for SLC infommercials, as it has been in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChairman101 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed your edits. They are appropriate (and already edited in) at the Fast ForWord page. Please note: there has NEVER been any lack of validation of Fast ForWord with respect to the wording of its reference on the page currently. The original scientific finding was that the magnitude of the temporal processing impairment was related to the improvement in phonological reception caused by Fast ForWord. This finding is how this therapy is referenced, and it is as valid today as when it was published in Science. I have no conflict of interest, but I am a researcher in this field. I do not like SLC's marketing, either, but that does not discount the valid science upon which Fast ForWord is based. In any case, that debate is substantially represented and referenced on the Fast ForWord page, its connection to Michael Merzenich is somewhat tenuous. It would be like blaming Apple's current marketing campaign on Wozniak. Animalresearcher (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability

{{Request edit}}

I am requesting that the following sentence, which is unsourced and might damage the reputation of Scientific Learning Corporation and the Fast ForWord products, be removed from this article:

"The benefits of this software for remediating poor language skills in general remains largely unsubstantiated Fast ForWord."

The sentence actually seems to reference Wikipedia, which is not permitted per Referencing for beginners.

Wikipedia's Verifiability page says, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page" (Burden of Evidence section). In accordance with conflict of interest guidelines (I am an employee of Scientific Learning), I am requesting help from the Wikipedia community in making this edit. Thank you. Nwiesen (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Quite reasonable. The sentence made no sense either; "Fast ForWord" was not used as a reference. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Merzenich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080930085810/http://ohns.ucsf.edu:80/aboutus/profile_details.asp?ProfileId=13 to http://ohns.ucsf.edu/aboutus/profile_details.asp?ProfileId=13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)