User talk:Ashweig134

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Ashweig134, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

hi there I would like to include a short section on a benefit that Morinda citrifolia, or Noni fruit, extract has on the skin, based on a published study conducted in 2005. [1]

how do I do that? Thanks

References

  1. ^ Induction of Extracellular Matrix Synthesis in Normal Human Fibroblasts by Anthraquinone Isolated from Morinda citrifolia (Noni) Fruit; Sung-Woo Kim, Byoung-Kee Jo, Ji-Hean Jeong, Sun-Uk Choi, and Yong-Il Hwang. Journal of Medicinal Food. Winter 2005, Published in Volume: 8 Issue 4: December 27, 2005

Ashweig134 (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashweig134, my suggestion would be to be BOLD and simply edit the page! Your reference is formatted properly, so you shouldn't have any issues adding it to the text. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page. . Gnome de plume (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morinda citrifolia and papaya editing

Hello. As you are a new user of Wikipedia, please adhere to proper editing collaboration and sourcing when they apply to anti-disease activity, discussed under WP:MEDRS and WP:CONSENSUS. Specifically regarding your edits for Morinda, your quick reversals now fall under the "3 revert rule" as explained by WP:3RR. Please take a break and do not re-enter this information.--Zefr (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Ashweig134 I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia as well as articles about health. Your edits to Papaya were remarkably promotional. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and questions for you below.

Information icon Hello, Ashweig134. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Comments and question

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.

DIsclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some relationship with companies that make or market Fermented papaya preparation/powder ? You can answer how ever you wish, but please disclose any relevant relationship. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the following was posted at my talk page in this dif; I cut it and am pasting it here to keep the discussion together Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hi Jytdog
thanks for your help.
Listen, I have been researching fermented exotic fruits for the past 20 days now and am a bit shocked at the information missing in wikipedia. since I have had to save all my references anyway, i thought I would make some valuable additions. So there is no conflict of interest on my side, but I may be a bit overzealous in my attempt to include the increasingly present evidence that fermentation increases health benefits. No - I am in no way affiliated with the makers of FPP. but with over 30 clinical trials to date, I am surprised that it is not present on the papaya page. I have revised the FPP addition to appear more neutral and will repost now. Thanks again. Ashweig134 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, can I please ask a bit more? Do you have any relationship with the Regenera Group or any of its websites? Regardless of the answer, you are pushing too hard. You are new here and there is a learning curve. The first thing you should pay attention to, is our sourcing requirements for content about health in Wikipedia - it is here: WP:MEDRS -- everything here starts with sources. But please do respond about any relevant relationships. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do respond here, so the thread stays together. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no conflict

I have no association with the makers of FPP, did not even know the name of the company (thanks for that), and I do not understand why these sources are called under question. I have read all the appropriate guidelines pertaining to verifiable references and see no conflict here. If you could explain a bit better what your qualms are, then maybe I will understand. Ashweig134 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regenra is the name of a research group in Italy that has been promoting this stuff - they don't make it. I'm willing to accept that you have no relationship with people who make or sell any dietary supplements, and that you are, as you said, enthusiastic about them. In Wikipedia, conflict of interest is just a subset of the larger issue of advocacy - it against Wikipedia's policies to use Wikipedia to promote anything (see WP:PROMO. Please also read our excellent essay on advocacy, WP:ADVOCACY. The problem with advocacy, is that it drives people to generate content that violates our neutral point of view policy, especially with regard to giving what we call "undue weight" to one thing or another. We determine "weight" in an article, based on what reliable sources say. As I mentioned to you above, the guideline for content about health is WP:MEDRS - we use high quality, indpendent sources for health content - reviews published in high quality journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. I hope that all makes sense. If you have any questions, I would be happy to talk more. best regards Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy of advocacy and fully agree. But I still believe that my sources, originating from such a diverse array of clinical studies across the globe, are reliable and worthy of supporting my more neutral edit to FPP, which was strongly lacking in the original papaya entry. I hope it does not require 20 years and over 30 clinical trials to substantiate every edit, but I do understand that health claims have particular importance. Thanks for your help. Ashweig134 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get involved in the article content dispute, but an article in which a clinical trial has been published, is not a secondary source. Again, content is based on sources - they are what matter here the most. The number of years and clinical trials is not relevant to working on Wikipedia content. Do you understand what I mean by "sources"?Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Papaya shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Brianhe (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Ashweig134"