Talk:New Chapter

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a major maker of vitamins and supplements. The current sourcing is reliable. --Thriley (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would note that the AFD notice itself plainly states, In haec verba "Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed ". I would put this in the AFD discussion, but that has gone on long enough, and I don't want to burden the closer.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , you didn't want to "burden" the closing admin by mentioning this, but had no problem insulting HighKing and then launching a personal attack against me?? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't attack you. Nor did I insult HighKing. My comments are about the article and the protracted discussion.  You are not the center of the encyclopedia.  Regards, 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes you did, Mr Latin-quoting Lawyer. "Queen of Snark" and "WP:Bullying or WP:Disruptive" for starters. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "7&6=thirteen, please drop the snarkiness, it is not helpful. Do you have any policy-based reasoning in response to HighKing's detailed explanation? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Back at you, Queen of Snark. Your presence was anticipated. Your history proceeds you.  Regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You called him snarky first, but whatever.  D r e a m Focus  00:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , that's untrue. I was describing an editing style, but Thirteen's comment was a personal attack. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , that's untrue. I was describing an editing style, but Thirteen's comment was a personal attack. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Referencing issues
Hello. It's great to see the improvements you have made to the article, thank you for your efforts.

As per the "better source needed" tags that you added, I do have concerns regarding the reliability of these sources. However I'd just like to clarify that I added the "failed verification" tag on the statement "based on research conducted" is because the claim is not actually supported in the reference (and the same reasoning also applied to the previous "large number of organic dietary supplements" text, before you improved the wording of it). All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks for explaining and rewording. I think I was trying not to use the word "invent" (which the article doesn't say except in calling them "inventors"). Also there's the issue of who owns the IP (the individual who "invented" while they were employed by the company or the company itself), but the way you've worded it now, there is no ambiguity. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm glad to hear that the IP question has been dealt with now (an unintended benefit, I must admit!). Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)