User talk:Gallium31: Difference between revisions
Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Trigeminal neuralgia. (TW) |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Yobol|Yobol]] ([[User talk:Yobol|talk]]) 18:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Yobol|Yobol]] ([[User talk:Yobol|talk]]) 18:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Yobol, I appreciate your enthusiasm for editing, but you are deleting valuable, peer-reviewed information. Nothing in science or medicine is ever definitively proven; progress is made by evidence being presented, discussed, and tested. Deleting information destroys that process. The items you deleted made no medical or scientific claims, they just reported published data from reputable sources that have been cited in secondary and tertiary sources. Please don't deprive people of potentially useful information.[[User:Gallium31|Gallium31]] ([[User talk:Gallium31#top|talk]]) 20:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:09, 18 November 2014
License tagging for Image:GaM.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:GaM.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:GaM.pdf
Thank you for uploading Image:GaM.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 12:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
File:GaMaltolate.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GaMaltolate.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Leyo 14:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion
One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 17:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC).
Thank you for your edits on TN. However, the source you used [1] is a case report, and medical content on wikipedia needs secondary or tertiary sources (see WP:MEDRS for more info). Thanks, Lesion (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Medical references
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here.
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, or post to the talk page of the Wikipedia WikiProject Medicine Yobol (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Gallium31. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Gallium maltolate, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Yobol (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Your recent editing history at Trigeminal neuralgia 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. Yobol (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yobol, I appreciate your enthusiasm for editing, but you are deleting valuable, peer-reviewed information. Nothing in science or medicine is ever definitively proven; progress is made by evidence being presented, discussed, and tested. Deleting information destroys that process. The items you deleted made no medical or scientific claims, they just reported published data from reputable sources that have been cited in secondary and tertiary sources. Please don't deprive people of potentially useful information.Gallium31 (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)