J.Ammon

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, J.Ammon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of 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)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Artesunate

Guten Abend - Danke für deine Nachricht! On my talk page you said: You reverted my edit on Artesunate about effects different from the known anti-parasitic action, being "Primary research too preliminary to mention". I don't agree with this view. I use wikipedia often as a primary resource for my personal search for knowledge. The reason for me to even read this article was the trial that I cited in the edit. I (being a physician) know Artesunate as a treatment for malaria but I couldn't comprehend, why it should be tried in traumatology. The article gave no hint on this topic, so I researched and added it to the article. I didn't claim, that artesunate could cure cancer, inflammation or severe bleeding. I just added the information I searched in the first place - that there are pharmakologic effects apart from the anti-parasitic ones which are actively investigated. I won't start an edit war. I know from our german wikipedia the battle, which content should be considered relevant or not, and I don't want to engage in it. That is one reason why I often primarily go to the english wikipedia, because it usually has much more details. And that's what I wanted to contribute.

As primary research, this study is preliminary and unconfirmed by a national clinical guideline or a review, which would make it eligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia, WP:MEDASSESS, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-7. Per WP:MEDMOS, Wikipedia is not intended for the scientist-physician specialist, but rather for the general, nonscience user - see Writing for the wrong audience. Zefr (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. The actual point of my edit was that there are effects of artesunate, that are investigated, but are not proven therapies and therefore not part clinical guidelines. This information would not fit into a textbook (what wikipedia is not, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6), but this is appropriate for an encyclopedia article about the substance.

This is not to establish new knowledge WP:OR, but to explain why there is scientific research in this field. "Readers generally want to understand research directions in any case." (WP:MEDMOS#Trivia) That's the only point of my edit. I had a fairly general question. Wikipedia didn't answer it. I fixed it.

(Before I hit "Reply": I realize that I sound rather pissed. And I realize that that's not fair. You stated my "good faith" in your revert and I appreciate that. But to simply revert a contribution without retaining the positive parts just doesn't feel ok. And being schooled about what WP is or isn't after contributing for nearly twenty years doesn't make it better. Yes, I'm feeling a bit sore, but please don't take it hard, it is late in the evening here in germany and I had a glass of wine. I'm going to stop here and go to bed.) J.Ammon (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)