User talk:Autacoid

Transferring discussion to you for further action, if any. --Zefr (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 22:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I saw the recent 'revert war' for the Dermatitis article. I was concerned about the unsourced edits by the IP 108.6.118.8, but I would not technically classify them as spam. At best, they are unsourced, good faith edits. If references are found for their edits under the "Traditional Medicine" heading, I argue that they can be placed under an "Ethnopharmacy" section. I am presently searching the Chinese Pharmacopoeia, where monographs of the mentioned plants are likely to be found, to corroborate the alleged use as an Asian traditional remedy. While I am more inclined to promote mainstream medicine and pharmacology, showing ethnopharmacy where applicable may be in keeping with NPOV. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 14:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine if you feel there is a credible source. Meanwhile, the edit should be taken to Talk for evaluation while we await your reference. Thanks for the feedback. --Zefr (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's important to be clear that just because a plant extract is listed in a pharmacopoeia doesn't offer any evidence of its efficacy, only of some standardization in its preparation. "Ethnopharmacy" gets only 21,000 hits in my Google search, as opposed to 1.2 million for "ethnobotany" and 1.4 million for "traditional medicine", so I would not support using "Ethnopharmacy" as a section heading in a plant article. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Point taken and understood. That is my main reason for proposing it under an ethnopharmacy (or ethnobotany, as you prefer) section opposed to "traditional medicine". I am cognisant that inclusion of "herbal remedies" in a pharmacopoeia only document standardisation in its production - for the most part, only plants that have widespread, historical, and locally accepted use as a remedy are included in such publications. If any critically appraised studies have been made regarding the plants in question, however, those research may be included in such a section, in my opinion. I want to be clear that I am not endorsing the efficacy of any herbal remedies until there are credible studies regarding them (or until they are widely accepted, as the use of Vitex negundo as a cough remedy in the Philippines, with formulations approved by its Food and Drug Administration without a "No Therapeutic Claims" label, and Department of Health (I will look for research to add to the relevant page when time permits.))

I apologise if I am unclear, English is not my native tongue. --a u t a c o i d ^(stalk) 22:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interest in joining the translation project. Let me know if you want further details on how it works? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you! --autacoid 21:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list of articles ready for translation is here

This tool can be used to see what articles are missing in your language.[1]

Do you use the Wikipedia:Content Translation tool?

This is where we track progress[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I haven't used the content translation tool, but I will look into it and the other links you supplied me. Thank you very much! --autacoid 11:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Autacoid. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]