Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Mastic (plant resin), without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.
Your 3 edits ending with this one are misinformation not based on
WP:MEDRS sources. There are no
evidence-based clinical effects of mastic gum.
Zefr (
talk)
20:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am new to wikipedia so I do not know much about what counts as a reliable source, but I provided several studies as sources, I believe including several that were peer reviewed but maybe not. If necessary I do have more sources backing what was in that edit. Additionally, you deleted the part of the edit regarding what was claimed historically about the plant, which is accurate in regards to the claims as it comes directly from the source that was claiming it.
DarthSpock07 (
talk)
20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- See
Flat Earth - there's a lot of nonsense that has sources, and
this source is full of nonsense. Read
WP:MEDRS for the kind of sources needed in support of medical content. There are no such sources supporting the chewing of mastic gum as a medicinal agent.
Zefr (
talk)
21:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I did look at WP:MEDRS, I do not fully understand what is is saying or how my sources do not work. I used peer reviewed studies from several separate groups, is there anything else that is needed? From what I could understand of the WP:MEDRS guidelines it seemed to be saying that reviews were preferred but studies would do in a pinch, and as some of the studies are rather recent there are not any reviews yet. The source you linked is a translation of Pliny the Elder's Natural History, published right after the eruption of mount Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii, and was used to support the claim that Pliny the Elder claimed that mastic gum was useful for oral medicinal uses. Pliny was incorrect about most of what he claimed, so yes the information is mostly nonsense, but it was not used as a source for a medical claim. Thank you for being willing to explain this to me.
DarthSpock07 (
talk)
21:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- WP:WHYMEDRS - if there is no review for an extraordinary (doubtful) claim, then an encyclopedia waits for an WP:EXTRAORDINARY source to say it indeed exists. Training for medical editing. Zefr ( talk) 21:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I did look at WP:MEDRS, I do not fully understand what is is saying or how my sources do not work. I used peer reviewed studies from several separate groups, is there anything else that is needed? From what I could understand of the WP:MEDRS guidelines it seemed to be saying that reviews were preferred but studies would do in a pinch, and as some of the studies are rather recent there are not any reviews yet. The source you linked is a translation of Pliny the Elder's Natural History, published right after the eruption of mount Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii, and was used to support the claim that Pliny the Elder claimed that mastic gum was useful for oral medicinal uses. Pliny was incorrect about most of what he claimed, so yes the information is mostly nonsense, but it was not used as a source for a medical claim. Thank you for being willing to explain this to me.
DarthSpock07 (
talk)
21:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- See
Flat Earth - there's a lot of nonsense that has sources, and
this source is full of nonsense. Read
WP:MEDRS for the kind of sources needed in support of medical content. There are no such sources supporting the chewing of mastic gum as a medicinal agent.
Zefr (
talk)
21:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:DarthSpock07
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:DarthSpock07 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from the entire Bee Movie script. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sunmist ( talk) 00:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Mastic (plant resin), without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.
Your 3 edits ending with this one are misinformation not based on
WP:MEDRS sources. There are no
evidence-based clinical effects of mastic gum.
Zefr (
talk)
20:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am new to wikipedia so I do not know much about what counts as a reliable source, but I provided several studies as sources, I believe including several that were peer reviewed but maybe not. If necessary I do have more sources backing what was in that edit. Additionally, you deleted the part of the edit regarding what was claimed historically about the plant, which is accurate in regards to the claims as it comes directly from the source that was claiming it.
DarthSpock07 (
talk)
20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- See
Flat Earth - there's a lot of nonsense that has sources, and
this source is full of nonsense. Read
WP:MEDRS for the kind of sources needed in support of medical content. There are no such sources supporting the chewing of mastic gum as a medicinal agent.
Zefr (
talk)
21:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I did look at WP:MEDRS, I do not fully understand what is is saying or how my sources do not work. I used peer reviewed studies from several separate groups, is there anything else that is needed? From what I could understand of the WP:MEDRS guidelines it seemed to be saying that reviews were preferred but studies would do in a pinch, and as some of the studies are rather recent there are not any reviews yet. The source you linked is a translation of Pliny the Elder's Natural History, published right after the eruption of mount Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii, and was used to support the claim that Pliny the Elder claimed that mastic gum was useful for oral medicinal uses. Pliny was incorrect about most of what he claimed, so yes the information is mostly nonsense, but it was not used as a source for a medical claim. Thank you for being willing to explain this to me.
DarthSpock07 (
talk)
21:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- WP:WHYMEDRS - if there is no review for an extraordinary (doubtful) claim, then an encyclopedia waits for an WP:EXTRAORDINARY source to say it indeed exists. Training for medical editing. Zefr ( talk) 21:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I did look at WP:MEDRS, I do not fully understand what is is saying or how my sources do not work. I used peer reviewed studies from several separate groups, is there anything else that is needed? From what I could understand of the WP:MEDRS guidelines it seemed to be saying that reviews were preferred but studies would do in a pinch, and as some of the studies are rather recent there are not any reviews yet. The source you linked is a translation of Pliny the Elder's Natural History, published right after the eruption of mount Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii, and was used to support the claim that Pliny the Elder claimed that mastic gum was useful for oral medicinal uses. Pliny was incorrect about most of what he claimed, so yes the information is mostly nonsense, but it was not used as a source for a medical claim. Thank you for being willing to explain this to me.
DarthSpock07 (
talk)
21:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- See
Flat Earth - there's a lot of nonsense that has sources, and
this source is full of nonsense. Read
WP:MEDRS for the kind of sources needed in support of medical content. There are no such sources supporting the chewing of mastic gum as a medicinal agent.
Zefr (
talk)
21:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:DarthSpock07
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:DarthSpock07 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from the entire Bee Movie script. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sunmist ( talk) 00:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)