User talk:Alrix27

Welcome!

Hello, Alrix27, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for medical information

Hi, I'd like to invite you to read WP:MEDRS, as it applies to the edits you've been trying to make. There is a higher standard for sources to support health and medical-related claims. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this is great. When I go to the PM next I'll have the doctors that wrote the case study review. It was published in a medical journal Alrix27 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their case study is considered a primary source for medical sourcing; you'll need a strong secondary source before the medical editors will allow it to be added to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Glad your not a bot. Ok I'll stick with this and see how Incan contribute. Very nice and unexpected Alrix27 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello Alrix27. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Alrix27. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Alrix27|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS ^💬 03:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not received or don't intend to receve compensation. If I do I will comply. I was thinking that the editor of the page must be getting compensated as my only understanding of why it was so important to misrepresent the truth. It still perplexes me why there is a statement ...there is no evidence that Essiac is beneficial to health. That seems to me to be an un-truth. Why not just state what the evidence is and its source. I kept concluding there must be a vested interest to be so adamant about not giving Ojibwa Nation credit, not stating clearly that the original formula is four herbs, and stating that there is primary evidence of health benefits and state the evidence....??

I'm actually skeptical still because it's weird that anyone would take so much effort to deny indigenous people their culture, deny medicle case studies exist, and mix up Essiac formulation with something that seems to be dangerous. Alrix27 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I added indentation to your response to GSS as it's good talk page etiquette) The reason for the resistance to adding questionable claims is because of Wikipedia's bias. Please read that essay, it will help you understand the mindset of many of the editors you will encounter. Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrix27, if you were familiar with Indigenous traditions of herbal medicine, you would know that the various false claims of Ojibwe origins for Essiac were fabricated by non-Natives to sell their products. The original recipe contains herbs that are not indigenous to Turtle Island, not historically used by the Nations "credited", and the formula was invented by a white woman who changed her origin story about the formula multiple times. This kind of misinformation actually harms the work of Indigenous cultural preservation, and we do not allow people to misuse Wikipedia to these ends. The name itself is her name, Caisse, spelled backwards. This is all known and sourced, so please stop your repetitive, unsourced and disruptive editing to insert misinformation into Wikipedia. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well a company based in Canada hiring freelancers to edit this page and I'm more than happy to share evidence with anyone interested. GSS ^💬 04:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Yes, if you have evidence of paid editing to promote business interests, that is relevant. If it is relevant to this user, feel free to post it here. I would also post it on the article talk pages of any articles that have been targeted for this editing. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]