User talk:Salimfadhley/Archives/2014/May

Notifying author of deletion nomination for Steven Kolb

Hey. You said you're deleting this article because it doesn't have references, but it does have references. I don't understand. - Natalya (sideways212) comment added by sideways212 —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Notifying author of deletion nomination for Dr. Frank Otto

You have proposed deletion of this article, citing the need for references. The article does have references. In fact, the main reference is from an article I wrote for that appeared in The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Carol A. Chapelle (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. As stated in that published article, many facts are based on my interviews of Dr. Otto himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalProf46 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michal Safianik

Dear Salimfadhley, Thank you for your suggestion. Can you show me how I can improve the article about Michal Safianik so that no longer I have to worry about messages like this? Let me ask one question. On Wikipedia we have an article in Polish: Michał Safianik, my article about Michal Safianik (the same person) is nothing else that the same text translated into English, about the same person. There in Polish no one proposed the deletion. Can you tell me why? Please compare the two articles and kindly show the differences. Thank you in advance! Urs8721 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urs8721 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sofic

I removed your prod from Sofic. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages — that's what disambiguation pages are supposed to look like. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

T.S. Abdul Latheef த.சா. அப்துல் லதீப் http://ta.wiki.x.io/s/jsr

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I noticed that you tagged Like Kings, We Rise as needing references. However, my research has shown that this band is almost certainly not notable and I have tagged it for CSD A7. Please be sure to check these things out yourself and tag as appropriate. For more help please see WP:NPP and if you're still not sure of anything don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I noticed that you tagged Poirier Productions as needing attention. However, my research has shown that this article is almost certainly not notable and I have tagged it for CSD A7.

Please also be sure to check that the creator does not have a COI as is clearly the case here. For more help please see WP:NPP and if you're still not sure of anything don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

About delete proposition of KEGG Cancer

I have very slow internet so unable to make it fast updation. But no Copyright violations it is public database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balasubramanyam (talk • contribs) 11:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuuse

Hi Salim, what do you need to prove the natability of the company Fusse, It has produced 3 records and a film Banaz a Love Story which has a lot of media coverage in Uk, Norway, has also won peabody award in USA. I contacted Deeyah about the forthcoming project which she refused to disclose, but this company is doing wellMehmda (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning Notability (WP:N) and Reliable Sources (WP:RS). In this case we need to show at least a couple of reliable sources which cover the subject matter (this company, not it's products) in some detail. Even if a product associated with this company may have achieved some notability, that does not imply that the company is notable. Let me know if you have any specific questions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think then it is ok to delete it right away, we can wait for sometime when one find the time is right, though I don't understand if those notable product has any seprate existance than the company. If there was no company, there wouldn't have been any product. But it is you to decide.Mehmda (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not just add some more sources? If the company is notable then there ought to be articles about that company. If you really think the article cannot be improved then I can help you request an admin to delete it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested article

Your requested source is available for download. In the future, please frequently check the page to see if the request has been fulfilled. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed in this discussion on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Homeodynamics

Homeodynamics was proposed for deletion previously. Not sure what the process is per WP:PROD given it says an article cannot have been previously proposed for deletion in July 2010. I am for deletion: in May 2011 I made such a suggestion on the talk page for the article, and no substantial edits have been made to the article since. See my talk page entry for details of the previous proposed deletion which was removed without comment by an anonymous user. --papageno (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Pasquale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Redmond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Vibroacoustic Therapy

You have no clue... before you delete do proper research... University research references are not good enough for WP:MEDRS... You should have read the awareness section before deleting this article... Why are you get confused and confusing others with medicine (read health wellness alternative medicine etc) Cyrinus (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cyrinus, the WP:MEDRS policy definitely covers all kinds of biomedical claim. If you'd like to point me to a specific section of the text I'd be delighted to review my own edits and the article in light of that information. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FDA approval to use 3 claims. What they deleted is not the old text. I revised it with more references. I do not understand which articles are not MEDRS compliant and which one is spam link. guidelines are not clear. [[1]] Cyrinus (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's make things really simple. Just pick one source at a time and I will do my best to explain what the potential problems might be with it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Perfect - Lets do that after holidays... Happy Holidays! Cyrinus (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Can we use this as wp:medrs or wp:v? [2] Cyrinus (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's a very small study (15 subjects), it's qualitative (i.e. anecdotal in nature). It does not appear to have had any kind of blinding or control. Furthermore, the Nordic Review of Music Therapy does not seem to be a journal with a strong policy of peer-review. Put simply, this is not a high-quality paper and it's not the sort of thing that could be used to establish any kind of notability. Question in return, did you actually read WP:MEDRS? The policy explains quite clearly the what we look for. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes wp:medrs and wp:v - no clear definition for quality of the study or secondary source. I will focus on PubMed and books... I will write new content and remove the old references (it is in sandbox now)... I will post a few sources to verify here... Thanks for all the help... As you suggested in another thread - I created vibroacoustic wiki in wikia... Cyrinus (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest you do not add an article directly to wikipedia, instead use Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation which will review your article before it is added to the main-space. This is a good way to get help with your article, especially if you do not feel confident that you understand the relevant policy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Vibroacoustic Therapy is not a Fringe Theory

• "Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy: Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training Marko Pukanen and Esa Ala-Ruona. Music and Medicine 2012 4:128,originally published online 17 May 2012"

Abstract Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention, uses pulsed, sinusoidal, low-frequency sound on a specially designed bed or chair. Today VAT is viewed as a multimodal approach, whereby the therapist works with the client’s physiological and psychological experiences, incorporating a mind–body approach. This article provides current knowledge in clinical practice emphasizing the systematic and documented implementations of VAT. This includes presentation and explication of the key elements of VAT, assessments, treatment plans and procedures, documentation, and evaluation of the treatment with recommendations for follow-up care in health and rehabilitation. Recent research is presented, and directions for future research are considered. Applicable views on clinical training and required competencies are outlined.

• Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2001). Musik och Rett syndrome - en musikterapeutisk tolkning. Unpublished Bachelor, Royal College of Music, Stockholm.

• Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2005). Musik och Vibroakustik vid Rett syndrom, en undersökning av autonoma responser. Royal College of Music, Stockholm.

• Bergström-Isacsson, M., Julu, P. O. O., & Witt Engerström, I. (2007). Autonomic responses to Music and Vibroacoustic Therapy in Rett Syndrome. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 16(1), 42-59.

• Bergström-Isacsson, Märith (2011): Music and Vibroacoustic Stimulation in People with Rett Syndrome- A Neurophysiological Study. Doctoral Thesis. Aalborg University, Denmark and Rett Center, Sweden.

Here are relevant literature examples from my own library

• Music Vibration Edited by Tony Wigram and Cheryl Dileo in 1997. Jeffrey books, 538 Covered Bridge Rd, Cherry Hill, NJ, 08034.

• Stress- kui sümmetriline seisund. By Aili Paju and Riina Raudsik (in Estonian) ISBN 978-9985-64-358-7 Maalche Raamat.

• Cheryl Dileo (ed) Music Therapy. International perspectives-Jeffrey Books, 5451 Downs Run, Pipersville, Pennsylvania 18947 (1993)

• Angst, Schmertz, Musik in der Anästhesie. Herausg. R. Droun und R. Spintge. Editioner "Roche" ISBN 3-88878-009-X 1983

• Music Medicine, ed.: Ralph Spintge and Roland Droh. MMB Music, Inc. ISBN 0-918812-72-0 1992

• Music in der Medizin , ed. R. Spintge , R. Droh. Springer.Verlag ISBN 3-540-17265-3, ISBN 0-387-17265-3. 1983 and 1985

• Schmertz und Sport. Ed: r. Spintge, R. Droh. Springer-Verlag ISBN 0-387-18862-4. 1988

• MusicMedicine, Volume 2, Rosalie Rebollo Pratt EdD., Ralph Spintge M.D. (eds) MMB Music. Inc. ISBN 0-918812-89-5 199

• Olav Skille: Il suona a bassa frequenza nella terapia musicale (a cura di Silvio Luigi Feliciani & Chiara Magni)

• ISBN 978-88-548-3603-7 Aracne Editrice 2010.

• And- of course,- there is Tony Wigram's PhD thesis on Vibroacoustic therapy. You find it on Internet.

• Märith Bergström-Isacsson at Rett cender also has got her PhD on VAT

-- Cyrinus (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to my comments on this list in the WP:FTN. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes Salim. but VAS is already allowed in wiki and it is not a fringe theory. If VAT is fringe theory - VAS is a fringe theory too. VAT is VAS. The definition in wiki for VAS is wrong - it is only defining Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation now - which is a subset of VAS... Many references available for Physioacoustic Therapy which is the same as VAT/VAS. PEMF uses pulsed electro magnetic field (NASA research papers available). VAT uses pure sound frequencies (not music with beat - which is music therapy - psychologist with guitar)... Music goes through ears (similar to binaural and isochronic frequencies)... VAT goes through body... -- Cyrinus (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrinus, you are making a Other Stuff Exists argument. That's the wrong way to approach Wikipedia. If you find bad articles, fix 'em. The presence of bad articles in Wikipedia does not justify the inclusion of more bad articles. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Salim, I fixed VAS several times but someone deleted it again and again - so I gave up on VAS and focusing on VAT. If VAS is correct VAT is correct - that is the truth and reality because VAT is VAS - simple and smart. VAS also has another name Physioacoustic Therapy - more references available on the Internet as well as other books. The FDA has listed physioacoustic equipment as a Class One medical device and allows the claims of relief of pain, increase of blood circulation, and relaxation. I will add more content for VAT with solid references - takes time -- Cyrinus (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

My advice would be to cool it. Most of the attention these articles are getting right now is as a backlash against perceived WP:COI and Wikipedia:Coatrack editing. You should definitely NOT be arguing to keep an article if it substantially overlaps another article's subject matter. Behavior like that will arouse yet more suspicion and probably result in the outcome you least desire. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this advise... all cool... It is my first wiki article :)... I have added more references to the list on my talk page. I will modify and post the article with proper references again. I assume PubMed, FDA and Universities are reliable secondary sources... I will add more references with the article... Happy Holidays!!!

• Low Frequency Sound Stimualtion/Therapy

• LFSS

• Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed

• King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed

• van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed Cyrinus (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge from or to?

Hi Salim, in this AFD discussion you're saying that Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) should be deleted as a duplicate of Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy, but the actual merge tags you applied to the articles suggest the opposite: that you're suggesting we keep Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) and merge the content from Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy into it. Which is the direction you're saying the merge should be done? Can you either fix the merge tags, or correct your statement at the AFD? Thanks... Zad68 02:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

After looking at it a bit I agree that a merge is the right way to go but I suggest a merge in the opposite direction... please see my comments at the AFD, would like to hear your view. Zad68 02:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Zad, sorry for being a bit contradictory! I think that "Electromagnetic therapy" is the general category and that "Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy" is a minor variation of the main subject area. By the way, I think all (or both) are highly fringe subjects and seem to be unreliably sourced. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I'm still not sure which is the better title, will look closer. I might or might not have my own opinions about the level of quackery/fringe of these modalities but as always I try to keep my opinions to myself and just summarize the sources... Zad68 14:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's any help, I do not have strong feelings about which way round the merge should be. I'd definitely give way to any source-based argument. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Pulsed Electro Magnetic Field (PEMF) is the popular mainstream word - also used by NASA research. Cyrinus (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• As I said, I'm looking for a source-based argument. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• MEDRS compliant? pemf] Cyrinus (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• PEMF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrinus (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Twisted Tea

I think it's awful, but this is a fairly well-known brand of products in the United States. Literally thousands of grocery stores carry the product(s). Please go to WP:AfD if you still want to delete it. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Divine Ark UAV

For notability, Divine Ark UAV is part of the list, see list of unmanned aerial vehicles of China. I'll work on the rest of issues. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XdeLaTorre (talk • contribs) 12:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Structured Collars

Dear S,

The difference will be apparent when you look for the term 'structured collar' in any serious quantitative finance works - you will find it is not specifically defined. The term has been coined as a tool to assist in the misselling of products byu banks to SME's

However, i don't have the energy to pursue this any more - or rerefine my article on interest Rate Swap Misselling again, which has offended Wikipedia's powers that be. Please feel free to delete both (or Lukesurl can do it). If you want to find out what it's all about, go to Youtube channel Bankirsa, or our website www.bankirsa.com

Kind regards,

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteravel (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Young Global Leaders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Samara, James Moore, Noma, White Star, Ricky Wong, David Berry, Chen Wei and Sonico

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

I sent you an email Jemmaymail (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As requested, please keep any discussions related to my editing activities in this public forum. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am reading the information on Ronn Torossian that has been posted over the years and have a some observations.    I am contacting you by email because I do not care to be part of that heated debate and get dragged into the limelight.

Looking around Wikipedia for as long as I have I see there are hundreds, if not thousands of pages that go unnoticed and some that attract attention  the moment it gets posted and then each time someone edits.  Ronn Torossian's page is just one of those that garner a lot of attention.

Not for nothing, he does generate interest and not all of good, yet so much of the negativity that appears on his wikipedia site goes back 5 to six years, not taking into account actions of someone who has grown or changed.

The Goldberg quote that you have in that Google Docs is from 2007.  Gawker is just as old if not older.  To Ronn's point, why are these two things the marks of what and who he is?

Being fair and judicious, one might give weight to newer materials too.  Hypothetically, in 30 years will Goldberg and Nolan still be the end-all of usable references for Torossian?

The fact is that a few people have focussed unusual attention on Torossian's page for years, the same people.  They have defended one another as they maintain the cons of the man, and universally work hard to delete any of the pros, or at least many of them.

Then  they complain about sockpuppets and meat puppets but there just is no one else editing other than people who have devoted themselves to seeing the article on this man look unbalanced and negative.

For fun, why dont you try to add - not remove - but add some measure of recent positives.  Watch how fast it gets deleted.  Then look and try to add a negative, and see how the usuals will believe it is just.

I am appealing to someone here to look hard and try to be objective.  Ronn Torossian started his busienss in 2003 and has had a very storied beginning, but in the past 5 years has been relatively routine and respected - yet that is not reflected.

I know him, not well.  I have followed his career and his firm, and the ups and downs, but this Wikipedia issue is just out of hand.  Can you please help instill some bit of balance here and really look to see if the best representation of this guy are five, six and seven year old stories?

Thank you Jemmaymail (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear exactly what change you are requesting made to the article. RT is clearly a controversial figure who has both high-profile admirers and critics. Are you suggesting that the criticism be removed from the article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Keep the balance. But make it balanced truly. To have the Jerusalem Post talk of his value to clients or the NY Daily News do the same, cannot be offset by a much older comment on a gossip website that makes its name on gossip. To say he is a disreputable flack in 2006, but to see his firm grow each year through 2014 cannot be balanced. It's old. Like using a quip about president Obama as a young state elected official when he has been a senator and two term president to show inexperience or lack of qualification today. It's just impractical.

If the only adverse comments are those from Gawker or even Jeffrey's piece in the Atlantic from 2008 are all there are, then maybe indicate the dates to show real balance and maybe indicate some education and growth in the process. As it is now, Wikipedia seems to be a place to keep certain personalities where they were rather than demonstrate the advanced nature of a living encyclopedia. I can look at my parent's 1971 set of encyclopedias to get the latest on Ronald Reagan if I were so inclined. apples to apples. A blog to a blog. A rag to a rag and established media to established media. Jemmaymail (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Every single reference has a date on it! Are you even bothering to check the article before raising concerns? In any case, Wikipedia has a 'once notable, always notable' policy, hence historical perceptions of a subject are valid topics for inclusion in an article even if they have been supplanted by more contemporary views. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ron Torossian

I read your note on the talk page. Is there a way I can read a transcript of the IRC conversation? I have never used IRC here. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How can I contact you. I've been asked not to publish the transcript, however it is not confidential. Could you explain what it is you wish to know? --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mostly curiosity. You probably already know the history of the User:Babasalichai sockpuppetry case. If you feel it is inappropriate to send it to me, there is no need. If you want to send it, you can send via Wikipedia "Email this user" from my talkpage. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)