User talk:Editora89119

Hello, Editora89119, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as :Jonathan Frantz, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center{{snd}}need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{tl|help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Jonathan Frantz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Jonathan+Frantz|deleting administrator}}. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.{{PAGENAME}}

:In case anyone else is reading this: Editora89119 has said elsewhere that the only "connection" is seeing the subject on the local news and having been a patient of a different doctor who works with the subject. This is not a conflict of interest within the meaning of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC

:Hello, I am replying here in case I mistakenly posted / replied in the wrong area. In response to your suggestions, I worked to ensure my submission was well-sourced and neutral.

:I went over each and every word to try to apply a more encyclopedic and neutral tone. From words like "pioneer" to "notable" to "key researcher," (and more) I have removed any and all language that could even remotely appear promotional.

:Other than that, the article is sourced with medical journals, as well as local and national news coverage.

:If there is anything I missed, could you point out specific areas where the tone seems promotional so I can address them? Or if this is satisfactory, would you remove the rejection?

:Thank you in advance! I've learned quite a bit from editors in this submission and am eager to do more! I hope these revisions maintain a neutral and factual approach while preserving the key info. Editora89119 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::_{Courtesy ping @Utopes} qcne (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello!

:::Just a quick follow up to my submission - Draft:Jonathan Frantz. It’s been about two weeks since we last connected.

:::I worked carefully to ensure the article maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone and removed any potentially promotional language. The article is also well-sourced with references from medical journals and reputable news outlets, national and regional. Also, the submission was previously approved by a couple other editors who reviewed the changes.

:::If there are any remaining concerns that need to be addressed before approval, I’d appreciate any guidance. Otherwise, if the submission meets Wikipedia’s standards, could you confirm whether it can now move forward?

:::Thank you again for your time and assistance! I appreciate the effort you and other editors put in! Editora89119 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Courtesy ping @Utopes, who wouldn't be notified of your post otherwise.

::::@Editora89119 I do still think it's written like an advert, there's a lot of subtle promotional language throughout. qcne (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for the response!

:::::Totally understand, and I am always willing and able to learn and improve wherever needed!

:::::Could you point out specific areas that still need revision?

:::::I worked to remove any promotional wording and keep it factual and well-sourced, in my multiple revisions.

:::::Any examples would help so I can make the changes and resubmit. Let me know. Thanks again! Editora89119 (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is fairly subtle, so words like.. "advanced" "groundwork" "pivotal" "paved the way" "as a safe and reliable technique" (who says it was safer and more reliable?) "instrumental" "foundational studies" "Legacy" "recognised" < all those words are promotional in tone.

::::::See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. qcne (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you. I will revise and definitely take a look at the manual. Thank you for sending. Editora89119 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hello! Thanks again for the suggestions!

::::::::I have made further revisions based on your feedback, specifically:

::::::::Removed the precise words you flagged: “pivotal,” “groundwork,” “instrumental,” “foundational studies,” “paved the way,” and “as a safe and reliable technique” have been removed or replaced to avoid subjective or promotional language.

::::::::I went over the manual you sent me as well, and I replaced what could be perceived as promotional phrases, using more neutral wording such as “participated in research,” “was involved in studies,” or “contributed to clinical trials.”

::::::::It now aligns with Wikipedia’s Manual of Style and POV policies.

::::::::If there are any remaining areas that need adjustment, please let me know. Otherwise, I’d appreciate your approval. Thanks again for your help in refining this submission! Editora89119 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thanks, @Editora89119, that does read better. You can re-submit for review now I think, though I'd recommend reading over WP:NACADEMIC to ensure Jonathan meets the criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, as requested, I removed the bullet points and redid the section, keeping the encyclopedic tone. Thank you for your suggestions. If there's nothing else to change, could you please approve? Again, thank you for the help! Editora89119 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Editora89119

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Klbrain, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Jonathan Frantz, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{urlencode:Jonathan Frantz}}&action=edit Edit the page]
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the {{Clickable button|Publish changes|color=blue|link=no}} button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @Klbrain,

:Thank you for your review. I’ve removed the PROD tag because Jonathan Frantz meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics (WP:NACADEMIC) and medical professionals.

:I have since added more citations from peer-reviewed medical journals, independent media coverage, and clinical trial records, strengthening his case for notability.

:Dr. Frantz played a role in one of the most transformative advancements in ophthalmology—laser vision correction, which has impacted millions worldwide. His early research was instrumental in FDA trials leading to the approval of excimer laser technology. This approval laid the foundation for LASIK and PRK, which remain the most common refractive surgeries today.

:Additionally, Frantz has been a principal investigator in FDA-sanctioned trials for ophthalmic medications, including Phase III clinical trials for bimatoprost (Lumigan), which was later approved by the FDA for glaucoma treatment. His research contributions have been published in high-impact medical journals, such as Ophthalmology and Archives of Ophthalmology, further demonstrating his influence in the field.

:His media presence is well-documented. He has been featured in mainstream news outlets such as WINK News and Naples Daily News, covering his role in bringing advanced ophthalmic technology, such as the PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens and VERION image-guided surgery system, to Southwest Florida. These independent sources validate his impact on clinical practice and public visibility beyond academic research.

:I understand the importance of ensuring articles meet Wikipedia’s standards, and I welcome any feedback or suggestions to further improve this entry. Given the strength of new sources and citations, I respectfully request the article be retained.

:Thank you for your time and consideration.

:Editora89119

:PS - I created a discussion on your talk page as well. I apologize if I should have strictly kept it here. THANK YOU! Editora89119 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Jonathan Frantz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Jonathan+Frantz|deleting administrator}}. CUPIDICAE❤️ 18:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. I also posted in the section to contest, but wanted to reach out directly as well. I do not believe the page is "unambiguously promotional" as it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics and medical professionals WP:NACADEMIC WP:GNG. Dr. Jonathan Frantz has played a documented role in the development and clinical validation of laser vision correction—one of the most transformative advancements in ophthalmology and modern medicine. His contributions to FDA-approved excimer laser research helped lay the foundation for LASIK and PRK, procedures that have fundamentally changed how vision impairments are corrected for millions worldwide. Additionally, he has led NIH-sponsored clinical research, served as a principal investigator in FDA trials, and has been cited extensively in peer-reviewed medical journals. Independent media coverage from sources such as WINK News, Naples Daily News, and Ophthalmology Management further demonstrates his lasting impact in the field. The article has been revised with reliable, independent citations to ensure neutrality and verifiability.

:If there are specific sections that appear non-encyclopedic or promotional, please specify them, and I will review, refine, or remove them as needed to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s content guidelines. Thanks! Editora89119 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Editora89119, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Jonathan Frantz, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Frantz.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:You are bludgeoning the discussion @Editora89119. Please stop or you will lose access to edit it. Star Mississippi 00:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The Jonathan Frantz article has now been deleted. I realize this must be extremely disappointing, and that this was a very frustrating process for you.

I wanted to explain why your approach to writing the Jonathan Frantz article was a mistake in the first place. In general, it's not a good idea to download every academic journal article a person has written or contributed to, and try to write a Wikipedia biography based on that. This will always trigger deletion arguments. Academic journal articles generally don't contain much biographical information.

But more importantly, relying on academic journal articles written by the person as the main source for a biographical article about them puts the Wikipedia editor in the position of having to "interpret" the impact and significance of each piece of research. By Wikipedia rules, this is not allowed, because original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, even if the Wikipedia editor in question is an expert in their field.

Instead, Wikipedia looks for reliable secondary sources – articles written by experts, academics, and journalists published in trusted publications (such as academic journals, books, magazines, newspapers, and websites with an editorial commitment to accuracy), independent from the person – which do the interpretation for us. Then we can cite those sources in the biography. In other words, instead of articles by Jonathan Frantz, what you should have been looking for was articles about Jonathan Frantz.

I like to help fix articles that have been nominated for deletion, but in this case, I could not find enough articles about Jonathan Frantz to build a biographical article about him on Wikipedia at this time. A big problem was that many of the articles that I did find were either written by him, or were promotional, like the feature article about him that turned out to be in a paid advertising supplement in a newspaper.

However, you were right that there are other practitioners in the field of ophthalmology like Marguerite McDonald who seem like they should have Wikipedia articles about them, who turn out to have a lot of coverage about them in independent, reliable secondary sources. It seemed like you were saying you didn't think the Wikipedia article about her was very good – I happened to agree – so I have now gone ahead and started rewriting and expanding the article about her. Take a look.

If you decide to continue editing on Wikipedia, my advice is to:

• Start using the visual editor (click the "Edit" tab instead of "Edit source") – it's the faster and more modern way to edit Wikipedia, like using a word processing app.
• Get more experience in making edits to existing articles, like you did for Spencer Roach.
• But instead of taking a long time to make multiple edits in one go, like you did for Spencer Roach, try making one or two smaller edits at a time and then hitting the "Publish" button; this way you will avoid edit conflicts with other editors who may be working on the article at the same time.
• Create an article Watchlist (if you haven't already), so you can easily monitor the most recent edits to articles you follow.
• Try to actually take some time to start reading a few Wikipedia guidelines. Very few editors read all of them but the successful ones have generally read the most important ones. The Welcome post at the top of this Talk page contained links to many helpful pages, but if you want to see the overview of the full list of guidelines, see Wikipedia: List of guidelines
• Explore Wikipedia, which is vast. Start looking at what other editors are up to and how they work. Start studying article histories. Start noticing patterns. If you think an article is good, try to work out how it got to be that way. Most often, it's the product of the work of a lot of editors over time, not single authors working in silos. Visit the Teahouse where you can ask questions and have them answered.

Hope that helps. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)