User talk:ChangingCFSME

Welcome!
Hello, ChangingCFSME, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Scray (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply for Scray
Dear Scray

Thank you for your welcome and message Scray. Not sure if I am in the right place, so I hope you receive my reply.

I don't believe I have a conflict of interest, but I do appreciate you directing me to Wikipedia's policies and also guiding me to where I can find help.

I joined Wikipedia as an exercise for study. I don't have the time to learn Wikipedia's navigation or application interface at the moment unfortunately. I will come back at a later date. I would prefer not to change my username, but I will edit my profile information so people can know who I work for, etc. FYI, I am an unemployed student at the moment.

I have pretty good critical thinking skills (and I am also studying a Diploma of Library and Information Services). Whilst I don't have formal education in the area, I am not unfamiliar with scientific concepts and studied physics and chemistry at high school. I feel I could bring a lot of the knowledge I have gained over the years to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome article.

Wishing you all the best.

Denene
 * Glad to have you here! Your first edit was not worrisome, but your username combined with the article on which you first edited made me want to ensure you had ready access to relevant guidance - hence the welcome particulars. You should not feel pressured to reveal too much about your personal information (just keep your editing in line with the point of view represented in reliable sources). I hope that you find the WP community helpful and welcoming to your editing efforts, and don't take anything personally - it's all about the content. Cheers! -- Scray (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Scray!

I notice that the page hasn't changed for the edit though - is that because of the formatting? Just wondering.... Thank you for your help.

Denene


 * Your edit was removed by another user prior to my arrival. That removal is recorded here, and I think it was well-justified. If you wish to add that link, I suggest that you discuss it first on the Talk page, to maintain the healthy cycle of WP:BRD. -- Scray (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Scray

Thanks again for taking the time to reply to me. I can't work out at the moment how to edit the talk page for the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome article. I'm pretty sure these edits require some sort of coding (I won't look it up at the moment as I really shouldn't even be spending time on this). I don't see his reason - from what I read there was no argument given, just an opinion (it doesn't belong here...). This is a very good resource that summaries a lot of the research and current clinical practices by experiences MECFS medical professionals, including exercise physiologists.

I find that one of the links in the top right-hand box (Patient UK) has very superficial and outdated information. For instance, one of it's references, the NICE Guidelines were created in 2007 and there has been a lot of advances in research and clinical practice. The Better Health Channel link address this research and clinical practice. I also don't find the references for the Patient UK link to be varied, and therefore the article is biased towards one theory. I'm not saying this is intentional but both the references and the inclusion of incorrect information in the article (because a proper literature review has not been done) do not make it an objective one.

I believe it should be in the top right-hand box and this is where it will be the most visible. It certainly contains very useful information for a person who has been newly diagnosed or who has had MECFS for some time but doesn't have access to resources from medical professionals abreast of current research who have been using these treatments (pacing, etc..) to manage or improve this illness.

Wikipedia is a well-referenced resource for medical information (regardless of whether or not it should be) and not everyone knows how to evaluate information. What I have found Scray is that other people don't always have the ability to search for or evaluate sources for the right information. This means that critically evaluating what sources are used and what information is published is more important than if one was just providing material on a general subject. I think we need free speech and varied opinions to advance our knowledge, even the "legitimate" articles on this illness don't get it right. There does need to be a balance though. I am very pleased to see this happening more now in the Chronic Fatigue Article. I read it quite some time ago and there has been the inclusion new material which I think presents the bigger picture.

I hope going forward the editors for this article edit with the objective of making it a progressive and equitable reference for any future patients, journalists, etc who would use it.

Still wishing you all the best : )

p.s. I need to get back to the study so won't be back for a bit. All your replies and help were very much appreciated.

Denene