Thestringtheorist

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Methylphenidate, you may be blocked from editing. Garzfoth (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding a minor section on the legality of Methylphenidate in India is vandalism? Do you really know what you are talking about here? Did you bother to go through the edit made by me? And the old threats of being blocked from editing. Really pathetic !!--Thestringtheorist (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

(copied from my response to you on my talk page)

The reason I reverted your edits is primarily because of Special:Diff/728118130, which is blatant vandalism. You do not have any reason to remove side effects at random, especially ones that are so well-supported by the cited literature. Now it's true that you added data on legal status in India in this and the subsequent edit (Special:Diff/728118277), but your source is broken and this is overshadowed by your vandalism. Feel free to re-add the India legal info with a non-broken reliable source.

What I posted on your talk page was a warning proportionate to your actions, which is considered standard procedure here on Wikipedia when reverting certain types of edits. There is nothing passive-aggressive about it - this is what editors are supposed to do in vandalism cases. Garzfoth (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)