Water-n-Sky
Welcome edit
|
August 2019 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.
I think it's pretty clear your inclusion has been challenged on the grounds that it is WP:UNDUE as the source is categorically not reliable. Please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Julie Eadeh, you may be blocked from editing. Praxidicae (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you explain to me what was disruptive about my editing?
Flaughtin had these reasons for removing the paragraph and deleting the article:
WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME and WP:PUS
Proposed deletion/dated |concern = Not a notable person (fails WP:BASIC)
I pointed out that none of these reasons apply to said article and person, because Julie Eadeh is a public figure, the case concerns a scandal and not a crime, and the NYT is a reliable source. Therefore, I changed the article back to what it was before. Water-n-Sky (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- An AfD is not a PROD. As such, no editor can unilaterally just remove the notice. Nor would that, in fact, prevent the AfD for proceeding. If you have evidence this individual crosses the WP:BLP1E bar and hits WP:GNG then you should present that evidence at the AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
March 2020 edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Glycyrrhiza uralensis, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please don't add content based on lab research to medical topics on the encyclopedia. Rather, choose high-quality sources as described in WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me what exactly is unreliable about the source I used when it is a paper published on the governmental website of the NCBI? Water-n-Sky (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- 1) It was a study in mice, many years from being applicable to humans if the topic had been pursued by other scientists (it was not); see WP:MEDANIMAL; 2) it involved a formulation from TCM, which is quackery; 3) it was not a reputable review, which is the type of encyclopedic source needed; see WP:MEDSCI; 4) it was 10 years of out date; see WP:MEDDATE; 5) the journal, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol., PMID 20377113, is not published by NCBI, but only listed there. PubMed is not a publisher; it is a listing service. --Zefr (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I'll put it under traditional uses instead. Water-n-Sky (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia page you refer to says that for biomedical information you need a source that is not primary, but in the 3nd edit I was not writing about biomedical information, I was writing about a cultural practice. That means the link you refer to does not apply. Do can you tell what else is wrong with the paragraph that it cannot yet be posted onto the page? Water-n-Sky (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Because the research is out of date, remaining unconfirmed, and is likely to be incorrect per WP:MEDANIMAL. --Zefr (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- But it does not matter whether the research is correct or not, when we are not talking of science. We're talking about CULTURE right now and the Chinese culture uses this herb for asthma. Should I make a new heading for cultural uses? Water-n-Sky (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Because the research is out of date, remaining unconfirmed, and is likely to be incorrect per WP:MEDANIMAL. --Zefr (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia page you refer to says that for biomedical information you need a source that is not primary, but in the 3nd edit I was not writing about biomedical information, I was writing about a cultural practice. That means the link you refer to does not apply. Do can you tell what else is wrong with the paragraph that it cannot yet be posted onto the page? Water-n-Sky (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I'll put it under traditional uses instead. Water-n-Sky (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- 1) It was a study in mice, many years from being applicable to humans if the topic had been pursued by other scientists (it was not); see WP:MEDANIMAL; 2) it involved a formulation from TCM, which is quackery; 3) it was not a reputable review, which is the type of encyclopedic source needed; see WP:MEDSCI; 4) it was 10 years of out date; see WP:MEDDATE; 5) the journal, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol., PMID 20377113, is not published by NCBI, but only listed there. PubMed is not a publisher; it is a listing service. --Zefr (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)