User talk:Chemicus 234
Welcome!
[edit]- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Shilajit
[edit]Great job on improving the Shilajit article. It is much better now and the references you added are great. SilverserenC 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Psoriasis and the Chaga mushroom
[edit]Hi, Chemicus 234. I've reverted your addition to the Psoriasis article and its link to an unreviewed primary source on Chaga as a psoriasis treatment, per WP:Primary and WP:MEDRS. So far, I've found no unequivocal support in secondary and tertiary sources for Chaga's "near 100%" efficacy as treatment for psoriasis, nor for a clear mechanism of action. The conclusions in the study you linked therefore seem somewhat speculative; but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on both counts. Scientifically sound sources are usually available at google-scholar; the results of my own search are here. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Haploidavey. One question only: did you actually read the article ? It is a case study and its outcome is described. It is an old Sovjet source (1973) and it might even have been discussed in other Sovjet journals; there's no way to check that, it is outside of the digital domain. I strongly believe my addition should have a place in the psoriasis article; it is a successful case study and presented as such. How can you question something that happened before your eyes ?
Regards, Chemicus 234 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Chemicus 234 (talk)
- Indeed, I read it thoroughly, and I don't doubt your good faith in supplying it. However, the inclusion of material at Wikipedia rests entirely and stringently on WP:RS, not on personal impressions, judgments or preferences for this or that theory, primary source, study or technique, no matter how convincing they might seem. This is a matter of policy. You're very welcome to bring the matter up at the article talk-page for discussion, clarification and consensus on the best way forward here, but please, do read WP:MEDRS carefully beforehand. It gives essential guidance on this and other matters related to sourcing at medical articles. Best Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)