User talk:24.5.69.164

Link Spamming

Dear IP 24.5.69.164, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your interest in contributing to articles. However, please read the whole page at WP:LINKSPAM, where you will see that if you are just adding the same links to many pages they will likely all be removed. You may not not add information or links to sites where you are involved personally. If your information there is truth, and it is noteworthy, then you just have to trust that popular media will pick it up and comment on it, and then other Wikipedia editors (not you) will include it in the article. Good editing! --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note but I think you are mistaken. The WP:LINKSPAM says: "The Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." But the link I added, and you removed was not for the purpose of promoting a website or a product, it was used as a reference for the herb in question, specifically adding the information about how its also used to support the immune system though liver and lung support. 24.5.69.164 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your reply. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. One of the great things about Wikipedia is the great record it keeps of every single edit, and how open they are for all to see. Often individuals who wish to promote themselves, or their site, or their cause think they can anonymously use Wikipedia as a self-promotion tool to get their links out and drive traffic to their site, thinking there is no way for anyone to prove that they are acting in their own interest instead of from a Neutral point of view (please also read that page). In your case however, tools such as your User Contributions page shows you are trolling through Wikipedia almost exclusively to add links to your for-profit website, nutritionreview.org. I assume your name is Jim English? Your IP address is coming from exactly the same spot as Nutrition Review's/Jim English's home address in San Francisco. Perhaps you are just Jim's neighbor, and are so fond of his website that the only edits you add are links to his site, lol? Jim I like your site, I might spend some time visiting there, but you have to understand that you and none who are connected to you may add any links or references to your site. You must self-promote somewhere else. Please though, do consider beginning to contribute in a meaningful way that in no way is connected to yourself. You might start adding content & references from reputable, peer-reviewed books first though (tons availabe online through Google books on the subjects that interest you. Please no more web sites or self-published articles though. Thanks! --Tom Hulse (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Thanks for the explanation. I am not Jim English. I do live in San Francisco, and I do know Jim English. Yes, he lives in SF also, but its a drive away, so not exactly in the same location. However, he does have a show room in Noe Valley where they have herbal products, and information. Is this still a conflict of interest? Jim English has been writing about herbs since the 1990's, and the site I linked to was his online resource site for information about herbs and various articles. I would not link to any site where they actually sell products. That would be a different site: www.puretango.com The Nutrition Review site I have used does not link to his sale site and does not mention any of the products he sells. It's strictly information about herbs, and related articles. I don't want to violate any rules, so I do appreciate your advise. I am new to Wikipedia and this is an area of interest for me. I'll take your advise and use other sources, peer reviewed textbooks, as well. But, if you want me to stop using links to NR, I will comply. Thanks again for your advise. 24.5.69.164 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually nutritionreview.org and puretango.com are two sides of the same coin. Their separation is artificial. They are owned and operated by the same person. They have the same physical address. They both link back and forth to each other. The whole purpose of nutritionreview.org is sell vitamins at puretango, NOT a purely altruistic endevor to distribute free information to the public. Anyone who said otherwise would really be fibbing. That's the first layer of conflict-of-interest. Second, even if they were separate (which they are not), nutritionreview.org is a for-profit website carrying advertisements hawking pills on the very subjects you are adding articles about. Surely you can see this second layer of conflict-of-interest? Third, these articles carry no original research, are poorly referenced, and are not peer reviewed. You are citing studies at UCLA for instance through these articles, but you should instead look up the real study on Google scholar, JSTOR, etc., and cite the real thing instead of through these dubious articles. Please also review WP:RS, especially where it talks about self-published sources. Even if you are not Jim, he still wrote the articles and published them himself. That makes all of them self-published sources, and all of them inappropriate for Wikipedia. Fourth, honestly now, c'mon. You ARE promoting that web site by your edits instead of working from a Neutral Point of View. Your primary mission here is not to help build an unbiased free encylopedia, but promote a commercial cause, even if you are not Jim. It is really obvious from your edits and edit comments.
We could really use your help though in the areas that interest you! Please do keep editing and improving articles with content from reliable sources. I think you'll find that you end up in some very enjoyable discussions on the talk pages of these articles with some fascinating people. You really should start though with the most realiable sources (books and peer-reviewed original studies). One more note... when you make claims such as a substance supporting the immune system or any health-related claims in general, then you also need to follow the additional guidelines at WP:MEDRS. Good editing! --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jiang Qing. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Yes, explained in the edit summary, the obvious reason why I deleted those parts. Its reads as a propaganda partisan piece, and no wonder when I looked at the sole source used to make it being a partisan and non-reliable source. If those claims are true then they must be made with reliable sources. Thus, deleting them is a must per WP policies. I'll leave this note on the article talk page, but please don't restore it unless you can explain why this source can possibly be deemed reliable or appropriate.24.5.69.164 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)