User talk:Andrew Waldron

November 2024

Hello, I'm Wiiformii. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, LASIK, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wiiformii (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I’ll get that sorted. Apologies I was referring to content in the recently published book about LASIK Andrew Waldron (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew Waldron, I'm MrOllie. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently made additions to one or more articles without citing a reliable source. Please note that all content and edits on Wikipedia are expected to be verifiable in reliable sources. In articles related to medical topics, the standard for content and sourcing is defined at WP:MEDRS, and in your edit you did not include any references that meet that ideal. Please have a look at MEDRS to learn about the quality standards for medical sourcing. You might also want to take a look at WikiProject Medicine. If you have any questions related to sourcing of medical issues, you can ask at the WikiProject Medicine Talk page. For general questions about sourcing, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC) MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think you must be mistaken. The source is indeed verifiable, in fact the source includes reports, peer reviewed papers from professors and medical doctors. I’m unsure of how you’d deem this source to be unverified? Andrew Waldron (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books from the popular press do not meet the requirements in WP:MEDRS, which is also linked in my above message. Please read the sourcing requirements at the link throughly. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again I fear you’re mistaken. This is a medical book as defined in the catalogue bisac codes. Could I please ask for this to be reviewed by someone else? Andrew Waldron (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was published via a vanity press, not an academic publisher. It is clearly not a 'medical book'. You've already been reverted by two different people. MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity press? The author is Morris Waxler as the named person above the addition in the original article. The co authors are medical doctors. The publisher is a science and technology publisher not a vanity publisher. Please I want this escalated, I now feel you are acting prejudicial with bias. Please escalate this for review. Andrew Waldron (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Staten House is not a 'science and technology publisher', it is a vanity press. They sell ISBN numbers to anyone through their website, isbndirect.com. Wikipedia doesn't really have a process to 'escalate' things, this isn't a business with middle managers you can speak to or a customer service department. MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authorit Services is the Publisher, Staten is an imprint and not a publisher. This is deeply concerning that you are able to unilaterally make these decisions, yet your knowledge and bias is seriously flawed here. Don’t worry I will find a way to comment this to someone that can assist. You seem hell bent on defending your very odd position on this. I think you’re more interested in winning an argument with me, than actually moderating. I will research how to challenge your approach on this. In the very least I will share this messaging with others so they are aware of the existence of such poor knowledge and bias. Andrew Waldron (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making personal attacks is not going to help, see WP:NPA. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly a personal attack. I am making clear you have a bias that is affecting the rights to make changes to this page. Important changes as they are. Also you are making statements that simply aren’t true. If there was a review process, I would be able to present that point. I’m simply trying to update information on an out of date page, which would benefit from the addition of material directly relating to Morris Walker and medical professionals directly involved. You have inferred they are ‘vanity’ publishing. Which they most certainly are not. Andrew Waldron (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a link to the policy against personal attacks with more personal attacks is an interesting approach. The fact remains, we cannot use that book as a citation for medical claims on Wikipedia, it does not even come close to meeting the sourcing requirements. But we are now simply repeating ourselves, so I will not respond here any further. MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 12)

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

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.

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 User:Andrew Waldron/sandbox 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andrew Waldron! 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! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]