Pwtragedy

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Bergamot essential oil. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kuru

Good Morning from India

I saw you message, I understand the the concept behind the Reliable Source. Yesterday i edited Bergamont Oil. Can you tell me how to find the reliable source? Because right now i have started, so i usually read the whole the blog to understand the information is correct or not.

I don't get the Wikipedia external link in the reference, so i put in the place of citation. If any question, please let me know

Happy to Give you Answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwtragedy (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to sources you used here, here and here. The "newworldencyclopedia" copies articles from Wikipedia and "rewrites" them, but usually leaves most of the article; this is not an acceptable source. The "healthysolutions101" blog copied most of it's content from the Wikipedia article at Bergamot orange, and the "everything.explained" site is a straight-up mirror; it just copies the Wikipedia article and gives credit at the bottom of the page.

Obviously, material copied from here cannot be used as a reference for the same material. You'll need to be more careful when evaluating sources, especially when deal with "essential oil" articles that are prone to hoax claims. Kuru (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to follow up, it looks like you continued to edit and most of your references were removed. Please note that health or medical claims fall under a special policy on sourcing that is more strict: see WP:MEDRS. This is to protect articles from nonsensical claims that could endanger the health of our readers. You will need to provide very meticulous sources for anything in that realm - usually secondary coverage of peer-reviewed publications that are explicit.

Additionally, the source you added here was again a direct copy of the Tall oil article from 2017. Kuru (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Pwtragedy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

'Minor' edits

See WP:Minor edits for limits on what should be tagged as minor. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pwtragedy! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to Find Reliable Sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Mirrors again

Pwtragedy, despite our previous conversation above two months ago, you still seem to be having great difficulties with sourcing. You used the "newworldencyclopedia" source again here; this was explicitly mentioned above as a poor source. You've used "bionity" here, which very clearly notes "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article Basil. A list of authors is available in Wikipedia" at the bottom of the page. You also added "dbpedia" here, which clearly notes "This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." In the two articles I reviewed this morning, I see the same pattern of other junk sources (blogs, user-created recipe sites, random "essential oil" websites), and good sources that do not directly support the material on the page. This appears to be a serious and intractable problem - if you are not able to evaluate sources correctly, please stop adding them. Please consider this a final warning: adding mirrors and other very obviously incorrect sources is disruptive. Kuru (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kuru

Thanks you for rectifying the errors, will consider your statement and make sure in the next edit will get the genuine source which doesn't come under explicit heading. Pwtragedy (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Oregano

Hello Pwtragedy. I have reverted this because none of these pertained to Oregano. Additionally please see WP:RS. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have also done the same with Chrysopogon zizanioides. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I restored most of your addition to Birch and it now has three of your contributions. Someone (Shortsword) accidentally deleted more than he/she meant to. However Shortsword did remove the albionus.lv <ref> because that is just a company attempting to sell something and then Plantsurfer removed the Costes <ref> because that does not pertain to Betulaceae but to Rosaceae instead. Costes would otherwise have been a good source and the others are acceptable. If in future you could improve the quality of your searches for sources and pay closer attention while reading them you could keep more of your contributions. Some of what you find is useful. Invasive Spices (talk) 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Vitamin C

You added the Padayatty 2016 ref to two locations in Vitamin C. I reverted that. First, Padayatty 2016 already existed as a ref in the article, so there was no need to add it as a new ref, twice. Second, your creation of the ref was flawed. I had corrected that too, but then I looked at the contents of Padayatty and saw that it did not provide the information called for by the citation needed request. For example, Padayatty had nothing on vitamin C and cancer or HIV. Please take more care in addressing citations needed. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Will follow more channel to analyse the proper citation. Pwtragedy (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

References

For journal references, the preference for date= is month (spelled out, not shortened, i.e., September) and year, rather than year-month as numbers. Thus, September 2018 rather than 2018-9. At articles such as Hyaluronic acid and Cedar oil you have been making flawed refs that others have repaired. David notMD (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, appreciate it. Pwtragedy (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Rosemary

These are inappropriate references. Invasive Spices (talk) 4 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Santalum album, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. In various articles, you have added spam nonsense sources like this. Please stop or you may get blocked from editing. Use WP:SCIRS secondary reviews from the published literature. Zefr (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not adding wrong external link. When i join Wikipedia, i already read about the pros and cons. Also, i am not Promoting any Website like you mentioned [1]. I found this article relevant, that's why i added it. If anything wrong in this article please lemme know, so i will find another reference article. Thanks Pwtragedy (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that you are not promoting any websites. However some of the <ref>s you find are low quality such as these. References like these must be removed. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This reference you inserted for turmeric is a "family-owned mail order business" (see about us, i.e., not a recognized expert source that may be interpreted as WP:PROMO), indicating you are not paying attention to WP:SCIRS when choosing sources. You are prolific in adding sources - the other editors making comments here on your talk page are trying to encourage you to make better choices. Slow down and read the source first for its quality. In place of a mail order reference for turmeric, I used KEW, which is a world-recognized leader for botanical information. Zefr (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

My bad, i always read the article then i add as a citation. This time i dont know how i picked the wrong one. Can you please guide me how to find the best source for citation? Pwtragedy (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Basic advice from SCIRS. Zefr (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Still adding spam sources

In this edit at Argan oil, you again added spam sources here and here. Evidently, you do not see that the publisher is a company selling something - that is WP:PROMO at Wikipedia, and you are spreading both commercial promotion and spam misinformation on matters of human health by inserting such references. You are prolific in adding sources, but careless in choosing good ones. I advised you above to become more familiar with WP:SCIRS (peer-reviewed, published in reputable journals or books), which you are not following. Zefr (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Soory again, i analyse every time then i add it. But this i think missed from my end. Will be more careful next time. Pwtragedy (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Agarwood. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Focus on the description of "health benefits in that source - all nonsense. Read WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think, i have to create a checklist for picking perfect citation. Then i can go ahead with the citation. Otherwise my work also get red flag, i dont need that. Thanks for the help again will rectify it. Pwtragedy (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference and spacing

In several edits like this one, you are adding a source in format but leaving a space between the sentence-ending period and the reference, then not putting a space for the next sentence. Other editors have to go in and clean this up. You can be more careful to proof-read your edit before finalizing it. Follow WP:REFPUNCT. Zefr (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Cardamom. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. It's clear you cannot understand WP:SPAM like this. Zefr (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I saw that you removed this URL Cumin I didnt get the statement. Can you please share your views. Pwtragedy (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Same with these also, Cumin Cumin. Please share the context, why these are not the reliable sources. Pwtragedy (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

1) This is not a WP:MEDRS source - it is a blog of misinformation. Anytime a source proclaims an herb has health benefits (no herb has such evidence) should be a warning sign for disinformation. Further, the source didn't support the statement where you used it. 2) This source has nothing to do with planting cumin. If a source isn't directly related to the topic, you shouldn't infer it applies; WP:SYNTH. 3) The journal removed here, an alt-med publication suspected of predatory publishing, is unreliable by publishing quackery. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is listed as a dubious source on WP:CITEWATCH, and should not be used. Your questions are proof you have difficulty in understanding the wide difference between spam and MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

How did you not recognize this as commercial advertising and spam? Zefr (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Pwtragedy (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please share the reasons why you blocked me. Because i haven't did anything wrong. Pwtragedy (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Pwtragedy, I think I (and others above) have already done so, and I disagree. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)