User talk:98.217.155.45

Welcome

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

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (98.217.155.45) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Say Headcheese!--hexaChord² 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Balsam of Peru. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche you are wrong. My contribution is neither original research nor synthesis of published material. As a matter of fact, it has been common knowledge to anybody versed in the art for more than a century. If you have reasons to question the contents due to ignorance of the matter then, a prudent thing to do is to request citations to the contributor and, also, there is such thing as adding "citation needed" next to a questionable claim. However, you quickly deleted the contribution in it's entirety, something that you seem to do quite often and, which is akin to vandalism. If you cannot resist your urge to delete other editor's contributions, I suggest you notify the contributor of your concern and, after a reasonable time elapsed (such as, for example, a couple of weeks or a month) with no response from the contributor or, from other constructive editors who would add your requested sources, go ahead and indulge.98.217.155.45 (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your three references only show the use for microscope slides. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what X said here and responding to you on my talk page, and in his edit summary at the article ... it is irrelevant what you maintain is "common knowledge" to "anybody versed in the art". WP is not the province of those who have such knowledge. Additions stem not from such knowledge, but rather from appropriate references that do not involve synthesis and that are to RS sources. A prudent thing to do is to add such RS sources if they exist, and if not to understand that the text is subject to deletion ... without any requirement of a tag beforehand, though that could be done as an alternative. You seem not to understand that material that is not properly cited to an RS does not have a "right" to remain in an article for any period of time. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By now, we are only talking about the deletion of: "such as for bonding lenses and other optical elements made out of glass to each other". Even if the cited references do not list all the uses of balsam of Peru in optics besides the most common use in microscopy glass, it is obvious, at least with some common sense, or logic reasoning, that balsam of Peru could also be used to glue other optical elements that match the properties described in the remainder of the text. I added that because I used it myself and, because it was a logical clarification of what the citations implied. I didn't have to have known this, I could have deduced it. However, it may not occur to some readers, such as yourself, that balsam of Peru can also be used for bonding lenses and other optical elements made out of glass to each other. I hope that with some clarifications, those statements became obvious to you too. It is worth including them for those readers that may not imagine those other obvious uses. Wikipedia allows deductive reasoning within an article, without labeling it as either original research or synthesis of published material. While there are cases where your kind of insistence is useful and necessary, here it is simply disruptive. [I should point out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious]. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Balsam of Peru, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not add and re-add against consensus material that is not cited to RSs via inline cites that directly supports your proposition. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Epeefleche, you need to stop your harrasment and your edit warring. Reliable sources were provided, so there is no original research, and what they implied was added using basic logic and common sense and, not by combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion, so there is no synthesis of published material. As it was indicated to you before, Wikipedia allows deductive reasoning within an article, without labeling it as either original research or synthesis of published material. The main point here is that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. With your pedantry, you are being disruptive and, with your threats, harassing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's harrasment and edit warring policy by repeatedly overriding contributions, as you did at Balsam of Peru, you may be blocked from editing. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.