Hello, Tr3ndyBEAR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Introduction  5   The five pillars of Wikipedia   How to edit a page   Help   Tips	How to write a great article   Manual of Style   Be Bold   Assume Good faith   Get adopted
If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC. You can also place ((Help me)) on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pannonian mixed forests 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 https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/pa0431. 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. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Pannonian mixed forests ecoregion (WWF ID: PA0431) constitutes 307,716 km² over the countries of Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Croatia. It is an ecoregion within the Palearctic ecozone and is of the temperate broadleaf and mixed forests biome as defined by WWF. The ecoregion is based on the complex of vegetation in the Pannonian basin. This complex includes subcontinental thermophilous (mixed) pedunculate oak and sessile oak forests, sub-Mediterranean subcontinental thermophilous bitter oak forests, as well as mixed forests, mixed oak-hornbeam forests, sub-Mediterranean-subcontinental lowland to montane herb-grass steppes, and azonal floodplain vegetation.^[1]

• Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regents of the University of California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Cohen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monoamine oxidase inhibitor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wrightia tinctoria, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Use WP:SCIRS sources for botany and taxonomy, and WP:MEDRS sources for medical content. Ayurvedic nonsense has no place in a fact-based encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Afrocarpus gracilior, you may be blocked from editing. Read WP:MEDRS and find high-quality reviews from reputable publications before adding medical content. Zefr (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said the following on my talk page (discuss here on your page):

Hi, you recently undid some major contributions I made to Afrocarpus gracilior and Wrightia tinctoria without any discussion. First of all, let's talk about Afrocarpus gracilior.

Ethnobotanical uses are an important source of information, and it is understood that there is a separation between ethnobotanical medicinal uses vs western medical uses. You removed the statement:

Which is an ethnobotanical claim, not a medical one. It is a fact that the Marakwet use it this way. I see absolutely no reason to remove the claim. Perhaps you had issue with the sentence, "Additionally, a dry powder of the bark can be used to treat eye ailments." What I intended to say is that it can be used in that way by Marakwet not that it's been proven in Western science to have those uses. The other change you removed was:

I also don't see any issue with this statement either. If you don't like the source, I can point out others, but it is a fact that paclitaxel was isolated from its bark and a simple visit to its own wiki page shows plenty of supporting evidence for its anti-cancer properties (it's a fucking patented drug!). The anti-tumor properties of Podolactone D was also investigated by this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12608867 which is from the highly regarded journal Journal of Natural Products which has an impact factor of 4.257

Neither of these changes were warranted or justified. I've modified the text and restored the contents (added sources, change woreding, etc). If you would like to actually discuss any perceived issues, please discuss it here, but if you continue to make unjustified changes with no explanation, I would like to report this behavior and discuss with some higher administration/mods. I find papers by looking through for the most highly cited literature on plants using tools like Scopus, Microsoft Academic, and Publish or Peril. Many times, these journals can be less know, but I always try to make sure they are the most cited and highest regarded literature on the given papers.

Your revisions to Nepetalactone were also completely unwarrented. All I did was look up papers that managed to extract the chemicals from other plant sources and listed some of those plant species. It's useful information, because most people regard the chemical as being unique to catnip, but it has also been extracted from other plants. I have no idea why you would remove that information (because you didn't even attempt to leave any information in the talk page!)

The edits to Zanthoxylum schinifolium were completely well cited from very reputable journals. Something tells me you didn't even bother to check that though. The more I dig into your revisions, the more I feel your behavior is bordering on bullying. I put a lot of effort and research into finding those papers. I combed through Scopus, Microsoft Academic, Google Scholar, and Publish or Perish to find the most cited literature and made sure it was from reputable journals. This is honestly really aggravating so i need to take a break from going through the rest of your edits, but I think I'm going to ask for administrator attention for this

It is not enough to use any published source. An editor has to assess source quality, as my edit summaries indicated. For botany, use WP:SCIRS reviews. For medical content, do not cite alternative medicine sources or non-WP:MEDRS references. The encyclopedia requires high-quality scientific sources to support its science content. Zefr (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, all of the sources are in compliance with the manuals you cited. It is you who is failing to verify that this is true. Please do so. Spend the time and look through the sources as I did... Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said: This is ridiculous. I actually spent the time to look through the most cited literature and made sure all the sources were from reliable, peer-reviewed journals. You're letting some strange bias you have guide you. I spent hours verifying their credibility, you judged it after 1 minute and yet have the gall to point me to the manual of style... Please verify them yourself before deleting them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr3ndyBEAR (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC) There's a difference between ethnobotany and medical claims. If information is clearly presenting it as ethnobotanical usage, there is absolute no reason to delete it as an "unsourced medical claim" Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are not WP:MEDRS reviews, but are publications from low-quality journals. This is not encyclopedic content, particularly for medical science topics. Zefr (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not medical science topics. Many of the sources you deleted were about ethnobotanical uses. This is completely different. Saying "these people were known to use this plant for this reason" is not the same as saying "this plant cures cancer". I don't understand how you could mix the two. There is no justification for removing such information

Also, see: [1] for an example of ethnobotanical reviews of plants from a highly respected journal.

Ethnobotany is based on traditional medicine, unscientific practices, and speculation. It is not a useful encyclopedic source to support statements on disease. A critical review is needed - that where a WP:MEDREV source comes into use. If you can't find one, leave it out. Zefr (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just a straight up racist comment.Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry you can't see the value in understanding the ways indigenous peoples have utilzied the plants around them. That's no reason to delete the information though. Like I said, this is not about medical claims. This is about ethnobotanical uses. There's a clear difference, and dismissing them as bs is narrow-minded at best, and racist at its roots. Furthermore, many of the other stuff you deleted was basically, "this chemical was found in this plant" with a clear, high-quality source that that compound was indeed extracted in that plant. Why would you delete that? That's also not a medical claim. That's a phytochemistry claim. I don't understand what makes you think you can interpret everything as a medical claim. It's insane

WP:PRIMARY - leads to uncertainties and disputes. That's why we rely on WP:SCIRS reviews and WP:MEDRS for anything related to treating diseases. Read WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what exactly is it that leads you to uncertainty? Maybe I could make it even more clear for you? Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the topic of Wrightia tinctoria. First of all, I wasn't even the person who added information about its use in Ayurvedic traditions. Second of all, it is one of the 50 fundamental herbs of Chinese traditional medicine. Outside of that culture, there is very little interaction with the plant. It is insane for an encyclopedia to not include that information when it's the primary fact about the plant. It is primarily known for its roles in that medicine system.Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, I did a lot more than add sources about scientific trials and evidence for its properties. I also added information about its taxonomy, cleaned up things throughout the page, and did a lot more. you undid all of that work. I spent all day working on it and reading through sources, and you spent a minute to delete it all without bothering to do any of your own research or even have the decency to post about it in the talk page. Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, the main source used WAS a review A review on phytochemical, pharmacological, and pharmacognostical profile of Wrightia tinctoria: Adulterant of kurchi. Please take at least a second before judging based on zero research whether or not something is "nonsense". Also, you can't call a culture's medical system "nonsense". Ethnopharmcology is NOT the same thing as western essential oil pyramid schemes. Do some research on that as well. If you look at any pharmacology journal, you'll see they borrow a lot from traditional knowledge of plant uses. In fact, over 90% of our medicines ultimately are derived from ethnopharmacology (everything from adderall (Ephedra) to aspirin (willow bark)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr3ndyBEAR (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pharmacognosy Reviews is a dubious journal listed among Medknow Pub., #4 on WP:CITEWATCH. See the disclaimer - we don't use these journals here, and Pharmacognosy Rev is not listed on Medline, meaning it does not have a sufficient record or reputation to be catalogued. Again, it's a matter of choosing high-quality reviews from reputable sources for Wikipedia content. That was not done for this article or the others you edited. You may have a sincere interest in these topics, but your choice of sources has not been to scientific standards the encyclopedia uses.

I've responded enough on this matter. Please don't make further comments on my talk page or infer anything about my motives other than trying to make Wikipedia better. See WP:NPA. Zefr (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Nepetalactone, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Zefr (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, any claims of medical efficacy must be sourced to the standards of WP:MEDRS. You can report, with a reliable secondary source, that a plant or its extracts are used in traditional medicine. Any claim that they are efficacious requires sources such as "review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals". We don't report preliminary or in vitro studies; this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Please review WP:MEDRS carefully. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, you're talking to the wrong user. I'm not the one who added any of the stuff you removed. The only edits I made to (one of) those sentences were formatting the citations. Also the source I used was a review article from a reputable journal, but I did not make any medical claims Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops, apologies. The bit you added was indeed fine. I removed some stuff from Tulbaghia violacea#Medicinal uses, a section you had edited, but as you rightly say, I left the bit you actually added. My fault entirely. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Tr3ndyBEAR,

Thanks for your work! I agree that according to Plants of the World Online, both Solanum glaucescens and Solanum glaucophyllum are accepted species.^[1][2] If you're interested in writing the S. glaucescens article, all that's necessary is for you to overwrite the redirect. Gderrin (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks so much for the response. I just created the page of a related species (Solanum pachyandrum) and had a wikilink to that plant. I don't know if I'll get around to making the page for that species as well any time soon (unless I make a simple, bare-bones version of it), but it's good to hear it's a simple fix. What's the usual taxonomic authority for plant pages? I usually rely on Catalogue of Life which seems to use Plants of the World Online for most of it's plant taxonomy, but I noticed PlantList is also very commonly cited despite being dead. Is there any agreed upon taxonomic authority for Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants pages? Tr3ndyBEAR (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page (under "Appropriate citations") is a good start, although a bit out-of-date I think. POWO is excellent. Most of the articles I write are about Australian Plants, so I generally use the Australian Plant Census. I have a message from WCSP that "TPL is outdated and should no longer be used. All updated data are on WCSP or POWO." Gderrin (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pteleopsis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terminalia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]