User talk:JaySeaAre

Welcome, colleague. If you can, it would be very nice if you could add to the library science articles--just pick one, most of them need work -- or pick a notable librarian or library that we don't have an article for. Best wishes, and ask for any help you need. DGG 06:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Clifford Lynch
A tag has been placed on Clifford Lynch 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 a person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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. Robin (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Molly Windman


The article Molly Windman has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not meet criteria for pages of living people

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LMB (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Meme Molly for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meme Molly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Meme Molly until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Badger Drink (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Note about NPOV
Hi JaySeaAre, I saw that many of your edits at Functional Medicine were reverted, and I think much of the reversions were justifiable. Some of your edits seem to come from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view Policy. Many people hear "NPOV" and think "this article should represent every viewpoint in similar proportions, and avoid any criticism of the subject." However, on Wikipedia, NPOV is about summarizing the major viewpoints as described in reliable sources, with similar weight to their coverage in reliable sources. For Functional Medicine, it seems most reliable sources talk about how it focuses on unproven and disproven methods and its relationship to pseudoscience and alternative medicine. Your edits seem to soften that language and weigh the viewpoint of "official" Functional Medicine authorities higher than its coverage in reliable sources would justify. In doing so, some edits start to come off as promoting functional medicine.

I hope this message is helpful, since NPOV seems to be commonly misunderstood. If there are viewpoints in reliable sources that aren't covered, it would probably be best to discuss them at Talk:Functional medicine to avoid getting into an edit war. Politanvm talk 13:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind reply. I am not trained in medicine, so as a layperson, this is an oddly worded Wikipedia entry that doesn't define what Functional Medicine is, but attacks what seems to be a growling field in mainstream medicine.
 * The WebMD peer reviewed articles about Functional Medicine I added were all reverted.
 * At the most basic, the page could at mention or link to the Institute for Functional Medicine. It's the sanctioning body that certifies licensed M.D.s, D.O.s, Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and BSN Nurses.
 * I've not participated in the Talk page, just because I've never done it before, so I'm open to that, but before I do; am I totally off base for thinking a link to IFM would be beneficial to the article?
 * Kind regards. JaySeaAre (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also not a medical expert, but there is a specific guideline for reliable medicine sources (WP:MEDRS). My general understanding of the guideline is that secondary sources (review articles, books written by experts, national/international expert bodies) should be used over primary ones (studies themselves). I didn't closely read all the studies you added, but if there are any you feel meet the MEDRS guideline, I would share that on the Talk page. If it doesn't get engagement there, the reliable source noticeboard (WP:RSN) would get more opinions - but you should have an ironclad reasoning to go there, otherwise people will just assume you haven't read WP:MEDRS.
 * For the IFM, it is reasonable to talk about it in the article (especially since Institute for Functional Medicine redirects to it). One issue right now is that IFM is discussed in the lead section, but not in the body of the article. The lead section is supposed to summarize what's in an article, rather than introduce new information (WP:LEAD). The other issue is that the article has no reliable sources talking about it. It would be acceptable for limited information to be cited directly from the IFM (see WP:ABOUTSELF), but the bulk of it should be attributed to secondary independent reliable sources. Otherwise, it seems like we're just promoting this organization.
 * Best, Politanvm talk 14:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)