Hhemila

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zinc and the common cold

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LT910001 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Concern

Hi again, I went through the list of sources and noted that your user name is similar to one of the authors cited several times. I am not sure if there is any issue here, but you were probably not aware, adding your own publications is not an ideal way of selecting independent sources and generating encyclopedic content. Please review the following WP:conflicts of interest (medicine) (essay). Thank you, Lesion (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a correct place to reply to that comment? I have been analyzing zinc and common cold data for a few years. Thereby I am an expert on the topic. I do not have any kinds of commercial links to selling zinc or otherwise related to the topic. If the goal of wiki is that authors should have no personal interest in the topic on which they write, then you get articles that are useless. If wiki wants to have articles that are valid summaries of the field, then the authors must be as high expert as possible on the topic. Of course, many top experts may write in too technical language, but as a group they are best to summarize what is known on a topic. Hhemila 128.214.178.141 (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As the essay lays out, there is a difference between having a conflict of interest and acting on it. You are more than welcome on Wikipedia, if I may speak for others, whilst editing in the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia. Below I paste a message containing some introductory advice about how to edit, thanks. Lesion (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You are new and the amount of advertising and promotion of views is very high. We had a conflict between people writing about boron phases. There is a Noble price on electric conduct polymeres which resulted in n nice edit war. I had to rescue a world wide known chemist from being ripped apart by the wikipedia community. The one thing which does not count here is your real life profession and the qualification you have and what you worked on. You have to own reputation by editing. A bad advice is to claim to be an expert and the a sentence like wiki is that authors should have no personal interest in the topic on which they write, then you get articles that are useless might to lead to bad blood. You are one person and wikipedia can be a lot of fun an very awarding, but there is a strait way into an edit war and a conflict with a few administrators. There is a nice conflict management in wikipedia, but for that a lot of time and insight is needed to come out as the winner. The chance that person with high real world reputation ends with a permanent block in wikipedia is there. I would like to help where help is needed. --Stone (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Hhemila, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Lesion (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the instructions, Lesion! I am on a "wrong computer" and I do not have the password with me and therefore I do not get the proper signature now. I had been reading the Wiki instructions but I found that there are lots of them and they are quite scattered. So, it is not easy to get a global picture. I will read the instructions you listed. Thanks! Hhemila 128.214.178.141 (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! WikiProject Medicine, if you want to have a quick perusal, is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine. LT910001 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Per WP:MEDRS we do not use primary sources to refute secondary ones. Thus reverted your edit on asthma. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally the comment section of a paper is not to be used to refute the paper in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We have a problem

This is your comment on the paper in question [1]. You definitely cannot use this as a reference. Please you the talk page to get consensus for changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Re Comment to Lesion 26 Oct

Hi Hhemilia,

Yes the way to talk to other users directly is via their own talk pages. If you want to talk about a wikipedia page generally, then the talk page of the page in question is where to do it.

Thank you for your detailed arguments. I supathize because I feel there are far too much rules and regulations on Wikipedia. I must point out that I wrote suggestions on the talk page about which sources I felt needed to be removed, mainly per the guideline for selecting reliable medical sources: WP:MEDRS. I did not perform the revisions to the page. To see who made edits to any page, you can click on the "view history" tab alongside "read", "edit" etc. I was happy to wait and let you re-factor the page yourself, because I feel this is the best way to learn the rules and regulations without having to trawl through them (trail and error).

If you have a fundamental conflict with the MEDRS guideline, suggest discuss why you want it changed on that talk page: WT:MEDRS. It is common for new editors to disagree with this particular rule, especially when coming from a formal research background when they can reference anything they like. I added many primary sources and saw them removed when I joined too. Now I see the wisdom in following this rule. It is to help the encyclopedia stay in the mainstream opinion.

I didn't ask the editor to make these changes, they took it upon themselves. They have experience writing medical content here. There was a short discussion on the wikiproject medicine talkpage about this page: WT:MED#I_found_a_cure_for_the_common_cold....

Re NHS and webMD, I would personally not use these as sources, but they are good to show the mainstream opinion of a topic. The wikipedia article should follow the mainstream opinion, even if this is not "the truth". If Wikipedia started deciding for itself what is the truth, it would be total chaos (even more so I mean). If the mainstream scientific opinion is wrong, wikipedia cannot be the place to forward arguments against it.

Apologies for calling that source promotional, it was a very brief survey of the sources I said. Due to the lack of references, and the self published nature, I would not use it as a source personally.

MEDDATE is not a black and white line, but it can add weight to other reasons not to use a source. A fully developed wikipedia article often contains a "history" section. Here is the place where primary sources are desirable, but only the landmark publications. The Theory of evolution would have original research publications by darwin in the history section maybe.

I personally have no issue with using published criticisms about the results of reviews. I would not have removed them. Suggest discuss on the talk page: talk:Zinc and the common cold to make these points. Lesion (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Zinc

Hi

You use a different style and syntax for references. I would be best to change it into the format chosen for the rest of the article.--Stone (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect figure on 3 zinc acetate studies?

It's great to see published results on zinc acetate for the cold on Wikipedia finally - I was aware of the Cochrane reviews but not yours. I am fighting a cold with some of George Eby's lozenges right now and it seems like something more people should know about.

I wanted to point out that you may have pasted in the wrong figure for the results of Zinc Acetate studies, because the legend refers to a Vitamin C group.

Also, I would encourage you to follow requests by other wikipedia editors to respect the editing standards and processes even though you are a domain expert on Zinc Acetate.

Cheers! eecharlie 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow up - I am even more a novice to Wikipedia than you are, it seems a bit inefficient to have a split conversation like this but I suppose it's the only way we each get notification of messages... So I took a look at the diff between your version of the zinc page and the current one. It does not look to me like the edits that have been made are vandalism. I think they are people trying to maintain the editorial policies of Wikipedia. For example, looking at your discussion of the 2011 and 2013 Cochrane studies, which I also read and saw problems in combining studies with multiple zinc formulations and multiple delivery methods (syrup, lozenges): you have cited those studies as well as your own, and stated as fact that your publication is correct while the others are false. I don't think you are allowed to do that, regardless of how plainly obvious the truth may be. Wikipedia is not based on arriving at the truth, it is based on representing all points of view in a fair way - there is much more to it than that, which you may want to read in order to understand why and whether your writing will be edited or reversed. So that was the meaning of my comment urging you to be respectful of suggestions from other Wikipedia editors. I think that you will be much more productive in generating content that stays on Wikipedia if you read about the editorial policies and follow them, so that other editors do not feel a need to edit or delete your content. Does that make sense? It looks like this may be one place to start: Policies and Guidelines And you may want to consider writing an essay rather than editing a page. eecharlie 06:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eecharlie (talk • contribs)

Welcome, but be careful

Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are:

• Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
• Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest. Many new editors cite themselves mainly. That behavior is unacceptable.

If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We should generally use sources by well known journals. This one has an impact factor of zero.[2]

This is okay[3] but we need to balance it with other positions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on my talk page. As you point out that journal is supported by the IDSA, and even though new I thus agree it is suitable for us here. Rest of my replies are on my talk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)