Bsseifer

ACEMg moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, ACEMg, does not have sources for several sections. Additionally, all information that amounts to a medical claim must meet WP:MEDREF, which requires sources from recent medical reviews in high quality peer-reviewed journals.

Further, (1) Wikipedia article on a specific topic does not give more than a sentence or two of basic background to show the problem is important--it rather links to the appropriate WP articles.This is not the place to discuss the mechanisms of hearing lossi n general. . (2)Nor does it refer to peripheral matters. Most of you bibliography section does; the ones that do apply to the article should be used inline, and ones dealing in general with apoptosis etc. removed. .

You are no doubt aware that the material here in many ways contradicts our article on Noise Induced Hearing Loss, though some related concepts are mentioned in that article. This article will therefore inevitably be challenged as commercialized pseudoscience. You will at the least need to include publications criticizing with A/the general concept that the mechanism here is the cause of NIHL. and B/ that the treatment here specified will prevent it. (There's no point arguing it with me--my role here is just to tell you on the basis of my experience what the community is likely to do.

The problem of promotionalism can best be reflected by using a title that does not include the trade name of the product. "Micronutrients and hearing loss "might be a possibility., or "free radicals and hearing loss" I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Belated thanks for your observations and editorial suggestions. The article is retitled Draft:Pharmacological Treatment of Sensorineural Hearing Loss. We (my PhD MD medical advisor and I) reviewed all the hearing loss pages and concluded that they are primarily written by audiologists, not medical researchers or MDs, which explains the lack of inclusion of possible pharmacological or surgical interventions. Our content adds to, but does not conflict with these pages. The possible exception is the page Sensorineural Hearing Loss, which does in fact cover pathophysiology and contains a reference to ACEMg. We are continuing to edit. Bsseifer (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly advise you, knowing from experience what works here, to use an absolutely neutral title, such as "Pharmacological factors in SHL" or the ones I previously suggested. ( a title including "treatment" implies there is a generally recognized pharmacological treatment, not just "prevention" and this affects not just the title but much of the article. I'm not expressing any personal preferences here, but advising you on the basis of what I know people here do, and what the consensus in the area. And I remind you of the meaning of WP:NPOV--articles must not take one side of a subject. We can discuss different methods for preventing hearing loss in different articles, but they must each discuss any disputed relevant material in a fair manner, including references to reliable material which does not support their view. So your list of peer-reviewed studies must include any that conclude the opposite.

FWIW, it is obvious from the public data that the article was obviously started by a audiologist, and significantly eded by another, but bulk of the content was added from an address associated with a medical center (though of course that could be any medical-related profession) , and it's been edited by a MD. And, FWIW, I have a doctorate in biological science myself. But none of this matters, because no editor or administrator here has the right to assert their authority in a subject. Everyone here writes as an amateur and their work is evaluated by the same standard--wether they have acceptable sources--in this area WP:MEDRS quality sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

much more important

Articles here must be edited by an individual, not a group. Each editor takes responsibility for verifying the content they have added. Stop using we. If someone advised you, and if it should for any reason be the case that they advised you incorrectly, you, not they, are responsible.

You have declared a conflict of interest. Please see our definition of a Paid conflict of interest, WP:PAID . In essence if you are employed bu or in any manner working for a company that makes the product being discussed, or any product or treatment or preventative method for hearing loss, or any organization supporting such work, and if your paid work includes writing this article, you must make the full declaration specified there. If, on the other hand, you merely have a personal interest, or the like, you need not explain the details. I recognize that from the original title of this article, and what has been already said, the COI is fairly obvious, you still must declare it explicitly. As I understand it, your MD advisor need not declare their COI, because they have no responsibility for the content,-- ( . DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

DGG ( talk ) Thanks as always for the constructive criticism. 1) I'll change the title. 2) There is no cure for SNHL. I will ensure that this statement percolates through the article to avoid misperceptions. 3) I am working alone. The MD advisor is editing. 4) I stand corrected about the author and editor of the noise induced hearing page. 5) I am a knowledgable, interested party but I am not being paid. 6) I am mindful of WP:NPOV 7) I am unaware of any article in the peer reviewed literature on upregulated free radicals as the fundamental cause of SNHL that contradicts that underlying scientific concept. 8) There is a "no test" peer reviewed paper. I will add. Finally, is there something else I need to do? Bsseifer (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

For #3 do you mean a/ you write a rough draft and the advisor revises the content for scientific accuracy, and you then do a final revision and post? or b/ you write a rough draft and the advisor revises it to the final version, which you post? If a/ this is a fairly usual situation, and I interpret it that the advisor need not declare. If b/ this is a very unclear situation for COI and copyright. I don't recall an open discussion, though there may have been , especially with respect to copyright, & I don't involve myself in discussion in that WP area. It's occurred covertly a few other times I am aware of, and probably many more that. I know the distinction may seem nit-picking, but the situations I am aware of deal with one paid editor commissioning another, and concealing anyone in the chain I consider gross deliberate abuse of our rules.

If you have no COI, my intention is to guide you to write an article that is unlikely to be deleted. I would not generally go to so much trouble for paid coi, as I dislike doing free work for which others are being paid. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

DGG ( talk ) Much much appreciated. Re #3: Clearly the former. I have the pen as the writers say, and neither I nor my editor are taking money for this. I have the subject matter expertise, gained over a span of a decade working with Joe Miller, my close colleague and friend who died in Feb. 2017. He was a great scientist; it was the privilege of my life to work with him. Joe was a leader in the field of auditory neuroscience, narrowly focused on free radicals in inner ear biology. The research field is quite small (and he knew and was revered by just about everyone in it). The potential impacts of the discoveries are important, since acquired SNHL is an unmet medical need and the second most common health issue on the planet (anemia is #1). More people need to know the fundamental cause of all the varied types, especially noise-induced hearing loss. Your suggestions are helping guide me toward an article on the topic for a wider, albeit scientifically educated audience, acknowledging Joe's large contributions without promoting them. Admittedly, it's tricky business. Hope this helps. Bsseifer (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Bsseifer. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jimfbleak I am an admitted Wikipedia newbie doing my best to comply with all the rules. The SNHL page is my first; I am not being paid. I have disclosed a COI as one of the inventors on ACEMg patents. All those patents are held by the University of Michigan, formerly licensed to Hearing Health Science. I was its CEO, but that company has been out of business for some time. I am volunteering for Hearing Preservation Initiative, a nonprofit formed to continue the education about, research on and equal access to hearing preservation therapeutics. I'm not a member of its board or staff. I didn't think I needed to disclose volunteer activities, but I'm happy to disclose that too if that helps get this page back on track. At the least I would appreciate your restoring the draft. It wasn't a trivial piece of work, and the article is the native file. My bad. Thanks. Bsseifer (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

One of your recent additions has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jimfbleak Confused and unsure about which content caused offense. I am being as careful and scrupulous as possible with citations and attributions, but obviously missed something important. I am the author of the content on the Hearing Health Science site, but that company was liquidated and that site is a zombie. I would warmly appreciate your restoring the draft so it can be fixed. Thanks. Bsseifer (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've seen these messages, but can't reply fully till tomorrow. All I'll say for now regarding the copyright issue is that it doesn't matter if you wrote it or if it was correctly attributed, if it wasn't published with an explicit PD or CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence, then it can't be reproduced here, since all our content must be free to edit and distribute without restriction Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The copyright issue is the main stumbling block for the reasons I gave earlier, but there are others

• From what you have said above, you may not need to make a paid editor declaration, but you should be transparent about your connection with this topic, better to be open than have people making assumptions why you have written about this obscure topic
• Your references are all primary sources, mostly co-authored by Miller. For articles is general but for medical articles in particular, you need to give secondary sources that give an overview of the topic, not, in effect, just promote the views of a friend, even if they are in peer-reviewed journals
• You have a long list of "SNHL references" at the end, but it's unclear why they are there, except that several are by Miller again. If they are relevant, use them as references, if not, dump them.
• Much of your text is completely unreferenced
• You shouldn't have external links in the text. If the content is to verify something, format it as a ref, otherwise make it a footnote or leave it out

I hope this clarifies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

and let me add that by far the simplest thing to do with any possibly ambiguous copyright situation is to simply rewrite, avoiding close paraphrase. Even when you're in the right accodring to our very convoluted rules, it's easier than figuring out the exact rules, and arguing about them. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jimfbleak and DGG for your careful reading and guidance. I didn't expect this to be easy; happy to continue revising as you suggest; refreshing to read DGG's comment about convoluted rules :) Also happy to add content to my user page about me and my connection to the topic, etc, especially from 2009 to Dr. Miller's death in 2017 supporting him and his work. What is the process for restoring the draft to draftspace, please? Bsseifer (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Jimfbleak and DGG: Would like to remediate copyright issues and comply with all comments on the deleted draft Pharmacological Factors in SNHL. Please can you advise about restoring the deleted draft to draftspace? Many thanks. Bsseifer (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

we absolutely cannot restore a copyvio draft. But i have emailed it to you. Be very careful when you write the new draft, and I would advise you tat you are much morel iikely to be sucessfull by making it fairly short and implying no medical claims. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

DGG: Understood, thank you and HNY! Bsseifer (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Free radicals, oxidative stress and the pathophysiology of SNHL

Hello, Bsseifer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Free radicals".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)