User talk:Cominion

Welcome!
Hello, Cominion, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing 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

Eurycoma longifolia
This concerns the Eurycoma longifolia page that is spammed in a sophisticated manner and protected by Cominion. The sophisticated spam is intended to promote a certain company that prints standardization on their labels.

First two logically wrong references are included. The references claim that for certain herbal medications, there is a wide divergence of quality. These references do not relate to Eurycoma longifolia.

An example for the applied logic is: it has been shown that the quality of saws and drills varies widely, so lets standardize hammers.

Furthermore, glycosaponins are not specific to Eurycoma longifolia but to a huge array af plants. To make claims that glycosaponins would work as a marker to differenciate Eurycoma longifolia from non-Eurycoma longifolia is trickery.

There is a reference to a Malaysian government-approved standardization body, but the page were standardization markers are specified is not in the reference.

The inclusion is spam in scientific lingo. The inclusion has been made to give a certain company based in Eastern Europe a competitive edge.

Readers believe Wikipedia. Feeding them pseudoscientific sales talk should be avoided.

Cheers,

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.48.124.57 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I shall try to reply to the best of my knowledge:
 * "The references claim that for certain herbal medications, there is a wide divergence of quality. These references do not relate to Eurycoma longifolia." The references refer to the use of extract ratios for herbal extracts in general. I believe that all herbs would be subject to this statement, and E. longifolia is a herb.
 * "Furthermore, glycosaponins are not specific to Eurycoma longifolia but to a huge array af plants. To make claims that glycosaponins would work as a marker to differenciate Eurycoma longifolia from non-Eurycoma longifolia is trickery." I think you're confusing identification techniques with standardization. The section you’re referring isn’t identification of the species, but the methods to quantify the quality of extracts.
 * :There is a reference to a Malaysian government-approved standardization body, but the page were standardization markers are specified is not in the reference." The full reference is behind a paywall. I have uploaded the necessary page here: Just to clarify, I don't mean that the listed standardization method is the only ways to quantify the quality of E. longifolia. This is only one example, and I think notable enough to be shared on wiki.
 * I will copy this discussion to the article talk page for posterity. If you wish to discuss further, we can do it there. Cominion (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Persicaria minor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulam. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)