User talk:WikiUser70176

About meTalk to meTools and other
useful thingsWindmills
I'm fightingSandboxRandomArchives

I'm always happy to chat, time permitting. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 19:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

RSN

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Origin of the Romanians. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Do not post on my talk page again. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 16:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Broccoli

On my talk page, you added:

Sulforaphane, a chemical compound abundant in broccoli, is being actively investigated in scientific basic research and in clinical trials for possible health benefits, including in cancer, both as a stand-alone chemical and in broccoli-based preparations. I have no vested interest in this, merely to stave off the naturists and homeopaths who complain science is "hiding" plant benefits. The review is from Johns Hopkins. I carefully worded it so it is accurate in every respect and there is no possible misleading. Is it ok with you?.

References

Thanks for the notice. A few comments: 1) the journal Molecules is an MDPI journal that is likely compromised by predatory publishing practices, i.e., the authors may have paid to have the paper published, and the editorial review may have been thin or absent - see disclaimer on WP:CITEWATCH where Molecules is listed among MDPI publications; 2) I see nothing in the review on human studies to give confidence about any in vivo effects of sulforaphane or glucoraphanin. The paper is a long recitation mainly on lab studies and weak clinical trials, and does not satisfy as a WP:MEDRS review. WP:MEDASSESS encourages using a high-quality review (e.g., a Cochrane review) of Phase III clinical trials to imply an anti-disease effect in the encyclopedia. No such late-stage clinical trials or review exist; 3) let's not be persuaded by the desire for coverage by homeopath or natural product advocates. Their positions are not based in science, and should be ignored; 4) minor points for your citing of a source with a PMC - a) you do not need to include any URL - the PMC generates a link to the complete article on PubMed Central (easier for users to access directly wih a link than to download a PDF) and b) the correct PMC format is simply PMC=6804255.

I will revert the edit and post points 1 and 2 on the article talk page. Thanks again for notifying me. Good luck in your editing. Zefr (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello WikiUser70176! Your additions to Memorial of Rebirth have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have no problem at all with the removal of my edit. That being said, what are you talking about copyrighted material? I just translated the description of the monument from its wiki.ro page [1]. The description of the monument (of the 4 elements, that is), per the designer's specs, appeared in many Romanian newspapers - which I can cite, but this being a Wikipedia in English, I thought best not to as would be unverifiable by the majority of the readers. Consequently, I just translated the Romanian page of the monument, which in itself does not cite anybody because it is public knowledge by now. Could you clarify for me what is the problem, please? Because I am thoroughly confused. P.S. The DC News article you linked though, funnily enough, copied the Wiki.ro page and not the other way around (check the dates if you don't believe me). ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 23:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)