User talk:Deewells

Mannitol
I saw your note on mannitol. Of course you are welcome to contribute, everyone is. In terms of your qualifications, no one cares because that information is non-verifiable. I recommend incremental edits and see how they work out. I also recommend that the information be somewhat general in nature (this is an encyclopedia, not a technical journal) and the citations be to books and reviews Check out WP:SECONDARY. The worst that can happen is that you add something and then someone later removes it ("reverts" it), so no big deal. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Smokefoot. It's unlikely that a gastroenterologist will edit D-Mannitol any time soon, and you're clearly educated and literate, so you're more than welcome to edit.  You might be interested in WP:MEDRS, which supplements WP:SECONDARY but was written specifically for medicine-related articles.  It doesn't matter if you're new to Wikipedia – myself or other editors can easily review anything you write.  The only really important thing is to cite your sources – even if you just give a URL or PMID, others can fill in the details. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific misconduct
Hi Deewells: Looking for the source of your condemnation of ClueBot, I discovered your edits at and about this article. You appear to have misunderstood: see the edit summary here for the clearest statement. We avoid using primary sources, because Wikipedia is a tertiary source (an encyclopedia), not a secondary one (a research paper or newspaper report). See WP:PRIMARY for a fuller statement and explanation. I'll drop a note on the article talk page and reinstate the section you removed after adding primary-sourced material in support and amplification - it needs a reference, but from a secondary source. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)