User talk:Cardiowisc

Responding more on your mentoring question, I do think it likely that the subject meets the notability criteria. Though they are paywalled, the two 1986 International Journal of Cardiology items about him are likely to demonstrate recognized professional notability in his field, as probably would the 1988 obituary. However... The draft article doesn't follow the Wikipedia format for text, references and linking. For example, right from the start:

Richard Langendorf, MD, Senior Consultant, Cardiovascular Institute, Michael Reese Medical Center and Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine (July 11, 1908 - July 08, 1987) elucidated mechanisms ...

Could become

Richard Langendorf (July 11, 1908 - July 08, 1987) was a (summary term, e.g. medical academic and researcher?). He was a Senior Consultant at the Cardiovascular Institute, Michael Reese Medical Center (better with links if there is an article under a variant name?) and Professor of Medicine at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. Langendorf's research elucidated mechanisms (clear general reader summary and refs)...

The referencing needs a lot of work, as hekatlys indicated. One should bear in mind that a Wiki is always open to further changes, so the current fixed numeric references in square brackets will become confusing, for example as soon as someone introduced a new reference between standard ref brackets between say your 1 and 2, which will appear as 1 in. Standard reflist. See WP:REFBEGIN.

The path of least work may be to "wrap" each current reference as ref name="1" etc. so that you can then use that as its relative name within the text.(But I may not have thought that through, and should perhaps illustrate by adjusting the first ref in the draft.)

I hope that can be useful. AllyD (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear AllyD, Thanks very much for your comments and your quick reply. I have a longstanding experience in medical article publications but this my first Wikipedia submission and I am working through the challenges. I have reviewed a number of Wikipedia articles in this and other fields and I am persuaded that Richard Langendorf is worthy but I know I have to make the necessary changes to meet the high standards of Wikipedia. I am entering all 113 references using Wikipedia citation button to minimize confusion. Happy to make any changes requested. Thanks! Cardiowisc (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello AllyD,

Could you take a look a the article and let me know if you see more I need to do before resubmitting? I am seeking photographs but so far the publisher declines to agree to Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Cardiowisc (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Cardiowisc. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Cardiowisc. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Cardiowisc|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear 331dot

Thank you for your interest in my submission and your dedication to the integrity of Wikipedia. I am very aware of conflict of interest rules and I have filled out COI questionnaires since the beginning of my research career and participation in NIH study sections for about 50 years. I have no conflicts of interest in this. Langendorf has been dead for almost 40 years and his institution, Michael Reese Hospital was torn down many years ago so I cannot imagine who would have a financial interest in a  Wikipedia biography, but I leave that to someone with a better imagination.

My father, a physicist, who died about 1 year after Langendorf, well before the invention of Wikipedia, has a biography in Wikipedia. I have no idea who put it there but I assume someone in the internet age decided  that his contributions were worthy of memorialization. I have never heard anyone suspect there was a financial interest.

I am a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist, retired from clinical practice and continued interest in research.  I have seen Wikipedia entries on cardiac electrophysiologists. Please see the entry on Hein Wellens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hein_Wellens who died in 2020.  The opening statement is “Henrick Joan Joost (Hein J. J. ) Wellens, M.D., (1935–2020) was a Dutch cardiologist who is considered one of the founding fathers of clinical cardiac electrophysiology - ”

I don’t know who contributed this biography but it seems appropriately enthusiastic. I do not suspect anyone had to be paid to contribute the biography. I expect one or more of his friends and colleagues, living in the age of the internet, went to the effort. He certainly deserves recognition.

This is what Hein Wellens said of Langendorf: “It is an unfortunate fact that many people who made significant contributions to cardiology receive their just rewards only after they have died… we, the undersigned, conceived the idea of organizing a symposium in honour of one of the great electrocardiographers of our time: Richard

Langendorf…. The symposium took place in Amsterdam, in October 1985. It began with a two-day workshop in which scientists from all over the world reviewed Dr. Langendorfs work, with particular emphasis on how his deductions on arrhythmia mechanisms derived from the analysis of the electrocardiogram, served as a stimulus for

their own research. The scope of Dr. Langendorf’s work is evident from the subjects covered…” Wellens lists 15 topics and 35 scientists who presented the research stimulated by Langendorf’s contributions.

[Janse, M. J.; Wellens, H. J.; Lie, K. I. (1986) "A symposium honouring Richard Langendorf". International journal of cardiology. 12:113–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-5273(86)90107-5 ]

In another publication Wellens said this: “Richard [Langendorf] was more than a unique teacher. He was

a genius…articles on reentry, concealed conduction, parasystole, His bundle extrasystoles, bigeminal

rhythm, etc. are masterpieces.” [Wellens, H. J. (1988) "Richard Langendorf: 1908-1987". Pacing and clinical electrophysiology.11:p1246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1988.tb03980.x]

As I have documented in my drafts, Hein Wellens is only one of many who have recognized Langenforf’s contributions. There is continued citation of Langendorf’s publications of which I have provided a tiny sample of the large number.

Everything I have entered into the Wikipedia drafts is well documented. Nothing I have included is based on my personal opinion. I have no personal interest in what gets into the biography. Anything that appears enthusiastic is based on the conclusions of well- regarded scientists published in peer reviewed articles. As a clinical electrophysiologist and scientist I have an understanding of Langendorf’s contributions to medical care. Over 300,000 Americans die of arrhythmias annually which translates into millions worldwide. I believe the world deserves to have access to information on one of the major contributors to understanding of arrhythmias.

As I have competed for research grants and published articles in peer review journals, I appreciate the need for the review process and I am willing to make changes to gain acceptance of this contribution. I hope I can get the go-ahead to make the necessary changes to the biography draft.

Sincerely, Cardiowisc Cardiowisc (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer; you could have just said "I have no conflict of interest". The draft doesn't make it clear that Langendorf is deceased as no date of death is given(though I missed the getting a degree in 1932 fact) so I was wondering if you were associated with him.

You don't need anyone's permission to edit the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)