User talk:LCDR IAM

Your recent editing history at transfer factor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Page on transfer Factor has absolutely no scientific accuracy as it stands written by WLU. WLU admits that he is not an expert on the subject, but will not allow one to make the needed edits. I have provided citations, listed them as pre-clinical, and make no recommendations. LCDR IAM (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The community doesn't care about whether you or I am an expert, it does care about whether you can verify information with reliable sources in a neutral manner. Please review my post on the transfer factor talk page where I list seven ways to improve your edits.

Seriously. You could be the top expert in the world and the community will block you for edit warring. Your expertise matters little here. I can help you write the page, I am happy to do so. But making claims like "I am an expert" carry no weight. In the mean time, continuing to edit war will get you blocked. If you undo this change, made by Yobol (talk · contribs), not me, you will lose your ability to edit for at least 12 hours. Please slow down and discuss on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I will not be blocked on the basis of your 3RR warning. I'm not sure if you will be. Rather than trying to game the system to get me blocked, you might try addressing my points. If nothing else, knowing the system better than you I am far, far more likely to successfully game it. For instance, I would know better than to report someone for edit warring without placing a warning on their talk page. I also know that a 4th edit is required before someone will be blocked (in most cases).

In any case, there is a discussion on talk:transfer factor in which I raise seven specific points where the article requires improvement because of your edits. If you are sincere about improving wikipedia's page on transfer factors, please have a look at them. Because I know how wikipedia works, I can help you write an excellent page. If you keep doing what you're doing, you will be blocked. Not by me, I am not an admin. Your own actions are unacceptable to the community at large, and the community will more than happily shut down your ability to edit for a day or so. I can help you avoid that, and improve the page if you would like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on the talk page. Please note our guidelines on talk page discussions, in particular the use of conversation threadings - new comments go at the bottom, indented by one level more than the last comment. Otherwise it is very difficult to follow. If you don't mind, I will reformat your comments to all go in one spot, leaving the actual text unchanged of course.

Note that according to the 3RR guidelines you may be over your limit and your posting at WP:3RRN may result in a boomerang situation where you are blocked. I have left a note asking the reviewing admin to hold off while we are discussing, though it would be at their discretion. There is a chance you may be blocked, but it is quite small so long as you do not undo Yobol's edit and continue to discuss on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I get it to indent so that it is in response?LCDR IAM (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Colons. Like this:

Starting comment.

:Reply

::Reply to reply

{{od}}Outdent to left margin</nowiki>

Which renders like this:

Starting comment.

Reply

Reply to reply

Outdent to left margin

I've refactored your comments on the TF talk page, another point of note is that interstitching comments like you did rapidly renders the page unreadable.

Thank you for continuing the discussion, may I suggest moving to the transfer factor talk page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at our guidance for expert editors:

• Wikipedia:Expert retention
• WP:EXPERT

Thanks, I will be replying to your comments on the TF talk page shortly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Please note the new discussions on the talk page, in particular the list of new sections at the bottom with questions. If you start inserting comments there, Yobol and I can help your expertise feed the page. I've left another note at the 3RRN and I think you can edit the main page safely without risking a block, but I would strongly suggest you help your fellow editors out in getting a better grasp of what the most recent research on TF is. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Geez, talk about bad timing. After all that, I have to go make dinner...as soon as I'm done I'll check back in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your meal. I will sit down and attempt another main page edit tomorrow. This should provide enough time to get all citations, hash out precisely what I want to say without making the page overly complex, and minimizes risks of any lock out.LCDR IAM (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I am done dinner but leaving again in an hour. I will look over your comments on the TF talk page. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me in the next little while. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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 could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked over your changes to the page. There are some obvious superficial issues with them but it'll take me more time to look into the actual sources and whatnot.

I can fix the "low hanging fruit" if you'd like, it's easy enough to do. But if you'd like practice editing (I'm not sure if you do, it depends on whether you plan to keep editing wikipedia beyond the single page) then I can point out the issues (and related guidance) and you can make the changes yourself. Please let me know your preference. I've also added a standard welcome message at the top of your talk page, there are some useful links in there in case you wanted to look them over. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting. Honestly I do not anticipate making edits beyond this page. I have expertise on Staphylococcus aureus but that page looks to be in order and the world is filled with people that can fix that page if needed. If you make the changes in the formatting, I'll look at the before and after to see what you did. I was able to piece together some coding things that way such as the ... links. But do pass along and issues related to guidelines so I can be aware of them in the future. LCDR IAM (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you change your mind, I am always happy to provide my opinion on the wiki-specific stuff. As you've probably realized by now, you don't have to be an expert to edit a wikipedia page so please don't feel the need to limit yourself to only those things that you are studying in-depth. Editing wikipedia is a great way to learn about a topic, and there are doubtless many biochemistry stubs that could use expanding.

I've made three changes to the page, see here, here and here. If you have paper access to the full chapter by Al-Askari (the NAS biography of Lawrence), it would be great if you could fill in the detail on that discovery. Right now its just one line that duplicates the lead, which is bad practice.

Other comments, the other section headings are pretty long and have improper capitalization (section headings also use sentence case, se MOS:CAPS). Several sources have less than optimal details, see my third edit today where I use cite pmid. You could try out the {{cite pmid}} with a couple more articles, including Wilson and Berron-Perez (which is also repeated unnecessarily, you could use <ref name = > tags to fix that, see WP:REFNAME).

I have a couple "substance" questions, but they'll take a little longer to formulate and look into the references. I'll try to get to them tonight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the capitalizations and changed the articles I cited to 'cite | pmid' as requested. I should have the book on Lawrence, but I am aware of more details and can put those in later even without it. I presume just a few sentences on how he came to discover the existence of transfer factor and how it got its generic name should be enough? I'll wait further questions and instructions. Thanks. LCDR IAM (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If we've got a reliable source and it is detailed, there's no reason to be brief. I would say cover the discovery in as much detail as you think necessary and interesting. This isn't a primary source, so there's no reason to limit ourselves on it. Just make sure you're adding details found in the sources, not your personal knowledge. You can use your understanding of the topic to paraphrase, reword and simplify complex biochemistry, just not to add details not found in the source. That being said, since there's only one page on the subject (in the sources I know about anyway) we're probably limited in how much text we can add.

Also, the page is now semiprotected. I think you'll still be able to edit the page, let me know if you have any problems. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit button is now absent from my screen. So it looks like I was blocked by some other user who clearly did not bother to read the talk page. Adding the relevant history won't be hard since I can go by what Dr Lawrence found in historical order and cite his papers. Since all the non-transfer factor items have since been verified to the point they are in textbooks I can cite secondary items as well. LCDR IAM (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, here's where experience comes in. Semiprotection requires you be autoconfirmed to edit the page. That means you need an account that is at least 4 days old and has a minimum of 10 edits. You've passed the latter, but not the former. You should be able to edit Wednesday, Friday at the latest, since your first edit was on the 12th of January. What you could do in the meantime, if you wanted, was put it on a subpage, such as /draft, and work on it there. You should still be able to see the raw text in an edit window, you just can't actually save any changes. So hit the "view" button, copy everything onto the page, then come back here and hit that red "draft" link. It'll open a new page. Copy the text into that page, and you should be able to edit like normal. When your account able to edit in a couple days, just move it back to transfer factor via copy and paste.

Or, just wait a couple days and edit normally :)

The semiprotection was added by EdJohnston (talk · contribs), an excellent admin. He actually noticed the 3RRN posting and commented there, using semiprotection to allow you to edit (in a couple days unfortunately) while preventing any ip addresses from editing. If you want to edit before then you could try asking Ed if there are any options, he might be able to autoconfirm your account for you. Plus, it's worth getting to know other people on wiki and interacting with the larger community. Up to you, you've a couple options. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, you should be able to edit the talk page still if you wanted, semi only protects the main page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'll wait until Wednesday and edit then. If you could easily pass on to the Ed admin to see about removing that it would be great, but sounds like it will be unnecessary. LCDR IAM (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Ian A Myles when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. This is my first go at this. I made another minor edit and it looks like it has no errors anymore. Thank you LCDR IAM (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you using ANY ai tools to help you write this? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08 nope. none. LCDR IAM (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi LCDR IAM. Thank you for your work on Ian A Myles. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Since it falls under WP:BLP, please add footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. Please also add more details to the citations. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei ok, I will work on the citations soon and learn about Blp sourcing amd try to add those. thank you for the support and guidance. LCDR IAM (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi LCDR IAM. Thank you for your work on Ian A Myles. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

His citations to date do not pass WP:NPROF, and a self-published book mentioned in podcasts does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. In addition, this page had masses of resume material which I removed. Wikipedia pages are not publicity pages, those go on facebook.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 not sure the Facebook comment is appropriate, but understood. I dont see how it would fail notability for academics given that the first crieteria is: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. the citations pointing to the numerous reliable news outlets was meant as evidence for this criteria being met. the guidelines said you need to meet at least 1. LCDR IAM (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, LCDR IAM. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Ian A Myles, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Making edits on your autobiography is highly inappropriate, and can lead to a suspension of editing privileges. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm just fixing the grammar. Is that not allowed?

Happy to add COI - what I saw from the rules was that it needed to be on the user page - what more should I include? LCDR IAM (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The only thing that might be allowed is reversion of blatant vandalism, e.g. blanking the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood - new to the rules. Would appreciate it if you would edit the grammar error but I suppose anyone (other than myself) could do that. Thanks. LCDR IAM (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I added what is needed. Please read the COI editing information.

You should request the change. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Do I also request removing the notability comment? Seems like criteria 1 has been met: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"? LCDR IAM (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You definitely should not do that. I will decide tomorrow whether I think the notability criteria are met and what to do. As I already stated:

His citations to date do not pass WP:NPROF, and a self-published book mentioned in podcasts does not pass WP:NAUTHOR.

Cursory comments on your research does not count towards WP:GNG, neither does mention in podcasts (which are not reliable sources), material must be reliable and independent. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia listed the reliable sources to include Google Scholar - which I linked to along with the specific citations as one would expect in science. Then, those were featured in reliable news outlets. I'm not following how a peer reviewed paper, along with independent, focused coverage in major news outlets count as "cursory comments". I get the point on podcasts - but figured that it demonstrated a verifiable discussion of the research. LCDR IAM (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I know one cannot use only primary sources - so the research that was not covered independently in reliable news media was not included. LCDR IAM (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, please read the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James V. Fiorelli, which will give you an idea about what military awards are considered notable.

Research coverage by news media does not count towards either WP:NPROF or WP:42, you cannot just interpret the policy as you would like. Your h-factor is 21, 3.5K cites. To pass WP:NPROF requires about 3 times those numbers. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood on military awards - happy to remove those entirely if needed.

However, the news coverage was in depth discussion of the work - in "multiple sources" which were "reliable" and "independent". And the WP:NPROF page you are linking to specifically states "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." ... so not seeing the 3x requirement. LCDR IAM (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to to edit your autobiography, you may be blocked from editing. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)