User talk:Semwaldk
Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).
We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:
- Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
- Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
- Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the species box and tags from this article. All living species have an infobox, so I assume that your removal of this was accidental. If you think the species box is incorrect, you should fix it, not remove it.
Although you addressed some of the tagged issues, others remain, and you should not remove the tags yourself until they are fixed. If there is anything you don't understand or need help with, let me know on my talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think your refs cover the medical claims, whcih should be sourced or removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Semwaldk, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
|
Hi Semwaldk!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi |
Experts and conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]
Hi Semwaldk I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, as well as content about health. You have added content citing your own papers twice now (here and here) to the Asparagus curillus article. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline, and will have some comments for you below.
Hello, Semwaldk. 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[edit]
Wikipedia highly values contributions by subject matter experts; at the same time, experts have some special challenges when they first start editing here. Please see the essay with advice for experts, WP:EXPERTS, which discusses both sides of that coin.
One of the challenges is related to conflicts of interest (COI). I am sure you are familiar with that concept from your academic publishing, but it has some interesting twists here in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia editors directly publish their edits, with no mediation (no publisher, no peer review - just direct publication) Please do read WP:COI, especially the section on Writing about yourself and your work. This meshes with the last bullet of the EXPERT essay I linked to above. We love experts here, but please refrain from citing your own papers; if you do cite your own papers and others remove them, please respect that, or ask about it on the Talk page, as described in the section of the COI guideline I mentioned above. Also, please avoid emphasizing your own perspectives on things; all of Wikipedia is meant to reflect "accepted knowledge" per WP:NOT) and to give the most emphasis in articles to consensus views in any given field per WP:WEIGHT (which is part of the WP:NPOV policy - one of our core content policies). Would you please agree to do that going forward?
As an expert you are well positioned to describe the consensus views in your field, and I hope you will contribute content describing them. I hope that all makes sense - would be happy to discuss further. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)