User talk:Yourmrbumbles

April 2020
Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It is very possible that I haven't conformed to all of the specifics of how an edit is made; however correcting the spelling of months (sic) to moths, in a biography of an expert on moths cannot be said to "not appear constructive". Equally for someone to mispell the name of a long established surgical instrument named eponymously after a famous surgeon is surely NOT constructive for the good reputation of Wikipedia and for Theodor Kocher himself.

David
 * CLCStudent has been cautioned more than once about over-warning. In this instance, very clear that your months to moths was correct, and has since been restored by another editor. P.S. Type four of ~ (not ≈) after you end your comments and that will 'sign' your User name. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Applying one's own expertise
I hope you find ways to bring your own expertise to improving Wikipedia. I began dabbling when I was active as a consultant to dietary supplement companies. I expected that they might compare my reports on the efficacy of plant-derived supplements to what existed in Wikipedia, so I got in the habit of 'fixing' Wikipedia first, meaning making sure that the articles referenced good, recent meta-analyses, systematic reviews and reviews rather than in vitro, animal studies and cherry-picking favorable clinical trials. I had hoped that none of my clients would look at View history to see what recent changes had been made to the article, nor suspect that I was David notMD. My worries no longer apply now that I am retired. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)