User talk:A1Protagonist
Conflict of interest
[edit]While I definitely believe the critic here has totally missed the boat; I've written another entry entitled "Breslow's Seven Golden Rules of Health." While the "messenger" Rajjpuut may not be considered "notable" (kind of like saying Plato isn't notable; though Socrates is)surely Dr. Lester Breslow --who besides this study has two famous books and the the first Lifetime Achievement in Public Health Award from the New York Academy of Medicine to his credit -- certainly qualifies as "notable." Nevertheless, the "notability" argument he/she makes is utterly specious . . . .
The critic here hasn't read with any discernment nor big picture understanding. The subject of the article is the 7 Golden Rules of Health as well as the original discoverer and the only health educator who has bothered with spreading the word about them for the last 35 years.
As for as "notability": Dr. Breslow is notable; Rajjpuut is notable; Dr. Cooper is notable; the 7 Golden Rules of Health are notable; public health is notable; America's present health care crisis is notable. I don't see any Wikipedia rule that says the writer has to be notable! That's like saying John Steinbeck or Mark Twain shouldn't have been allowed to make their first writing efforts because they weren't notable . . . if there's sense in that, I certainly don't see it.
Is the article notable? Clearly so. Imagine if virtually every kid under 20 in this country suddenly found themselves with 35 extra high-quality years between the ages of 20 and 55. Imagine if diabetes, pre-diabetes, obesity and morbid obesity largely disappeared from the American scene. Those notable results could occur if the article was read and acted upon by enough people. The article definitely IS notable and this person's particular criticism does NOT address whether the article is notable or not.
Complaining that there was a violation of the "no original research is allowed" rule is ridiculous. Dr. Breslow and Dr. Cooper did the original research. Rajjpuut is virtually the only one that's been spreading the word for about 35 years. Dr. Cooper has written several books in which every single one of the 7 Golden Rules is mentioned . . . but this undeservedly overlooked study which shows the synergism of the 7 Golden Rules working in concert is the only single source for this key information taken as a whole and only Rajjpuut's articles are turning the light on it. Look you can now say that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize . . . and that is a glorious fact (undeserved as the prize was) but you cannot say that these three men have done something great for public health education? You can even say as fact that Harry Reid has passed a health care bill in the U.S. Senate. I submit that neither Mr. Obama's Nobel Prize nor Mr. Reid's "success" is 1% as notable as the 7 Golden Rules of Health.
Has the critic actually examined the references?
- You are confusing worthiness and nobility of the topic with notability. Please read WP:NOBLECAUSE. You have also confused the alleged notability of the author with notability of the subject; see WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS for the difference, and WP:PROF for information about whether Cooper is deemed notable by our standards. (And while I have worked in public health professionally in the past myself, I also submit that the sentence ending in "neither Mr. Obama's Nobel Prize nor Mr. Reid's "success" is 1% as notable as the 7 Golden Rules of Health" is purest horsecrap, and betrays a profoundly distorted misunderstanding of the concept of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at User:A1Protagonist/Rajjpuut's 7 Golden Rules of Health. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.
Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) This specifically includes your friends such as "Rajjpuut" a/k/a VanDeHey. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Signing your posts
[edit] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Commentary goes to the talk page
[edit] Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Erik the Red. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Breslow's Seven Golden Rules of Health and Longevity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ZooPro 13:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)