User talk:EvCalifano

EvCalifano, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi EvCalifano! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Andy Rachleff

Hi, I'm Nafsadh. EvCalifano, thanks for creating Andy Rachleff!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article reads more like a resume than a Wikipedia article

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. » nafSadh did say 07:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bircham

I don't know why you've started editing that article, I do know that William Martin has been trying for years to make the Wikipedia article reflect his own beliefs about the place which are not borne out by independent sources. Like it or not, it is an unaccredited private college whose degrees are effectively worthless due to the lack of accreditation. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi EvCalifano I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your recent edits are on a bit promotional about Cranial electrotherapy stimulation. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, EvCalifano. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with any company that sells or markets CES devices, or a clinic that uses them? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. You can reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog. I've been away for some time handling a family crisis and took some time off Wiki afterward. Anyways, much gratitude to you for reaching out as a peer regarding recent edits. To answer your inquiry, I can honestly say I don't have a connection to CES devices or CES clinics in any capacity. To tell you the truth, I'm feeling fairly underwater and overwhelmed trying to make edits on the article because this CES idea definitely goes over my head at times. It's intimidating but I'm trying to get outside my comfort zone on Wiki and be bold and make some improvements where I think can help. However, I can totally see where my edits are concerning (not an expert here and have some issues comprehending the info I'm pulling from). If you'd be willing to guide my through a couple questions, I would be more than grateful. -- Before my emergency, was working on the effectiveness of CES and expanding info on the Cochrane review. I pulled some info from the abstract to introduce what Cochrane further. It was undone when I logged back on today when I thought this was helpful to explain what Cochrane was studying when they found inaccuracies in CES working. If I can work with someone more in the know on where I'm going wrong, that would be great and help me with any other ideas I have. Alas, thanks for your time Jytdog, please let me know what you think. EvCalifano (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for replying. Your answer makes sense. yes it is hard to start editing in a field like this. You may want to read WP:MEDMOS which is our manual of style for health content. In general, we edit from the stance of science-based medicine. We don't say that something is safe and effective, unless there is actually evidence for that. We keep the bar high - we don't say that something "might" be safe and effective for X, we say "there is no good evidence that something is safe and effective for X. As you might imagine, all kinds of people believe all kinds of things about health, and if let things be woozy/fuzzy, Wikipedia would be filled with all kinds of garbage. Also please be sure that you have read and understand WP:MEDRS, the guideline for sourcing health content. If you don't fully understand why we look for high-quality sources, please consider having a look at WP:Why MEDRS? (disclosure, I mostly wrote that). Let me know if I can be of help on any specific thing! Thanks again for replying so graciously. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very appreciative of the MoS and RS pages for the topic. I may feel a little bit out of my element here, but it's nice to have helpful experience and knowledge from you. Definitely noted on what should/shouldn't be said about the effectiveness regarding medicine articles. I'll come back to my convoluted question about expanding Cochrane later. Speaking of specifics, I'm focusing on further additions to the CES history and have been kinda going back and forth with myself about finding good documentation. Since it's history, I'm thinking that I can use more news related sources because I'm not claiming safeness or unsafeness either way. Going to make those edits next and look forward to working directly with you if there's any issue, Jytdog. EvCalifano (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to talk about the Cochrane thing - since that is article specific we can do that on the article Talk page, whenever you like. As to the history stuff, yes per the section of MEDRS on popular press, plain old WP:RS applies for historical information. yes! Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jytdog!!! EvCalifano (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Checkr (April 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Checkr and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Checkr, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

SamHolt6 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Checkr (May 11)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by K.e.coffman was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Checkr concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Checkr, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Checkr

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

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 edit the submission 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! Celestina007 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xsolla New Logo.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Xsolla New Logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Matr1x-101 $_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page @ commons} - ^talk - _contribs} 20:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]