User talk:185.3.100.45

March 2017[edit]

Hi, I did actually try to respond back re. "fringe" theories, seems that other people also use this address range.

Not quite sure what the problem is here, a lot of what I am posting is basically correct but its hard to locate reliable sources in many cases due to paywalls. Notably a lot of articles about specialized subjects are nearly impossible to locate information on unless you are an academic or have access to journals. 185.3.100.45 on March 28, 2017

Thanks for posting. The problem is that Wikipedia requires reliable sources for any information added now. We simply get too many people posting what they think is correct, so we now insist that new material be verifiable. Otherwise we'd be inundated with junk. Sources behind paywalls are not a show-stopper - as long as you have seen the source and can accurately summarize it, you can certainly cite sources that are not available freely online. Please refer to citing sources for how to do this properly - its basically the way you would format a bibliography and/or footnotes for a school research paper. If the source is at all obscure, its best to retain a copy of what you saw (photo or scan) because other editors may ask to see it, and you can supply it to them via email without worrying about copyright law (it's considered "fair use" since this is an educational purpose). There are also ways when using a template to format your citations to include a short direct quote from your source so other editors can see it right there in the footnotes - use quote= in the CITE template. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Krelnik (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Thanks for the advice. I did run into some interesting effects here which suggests that there may be a lot of useful data which I am not aware of due to lack of reliable references, adding my observations evidently just makes things more complicated. Its also possible that publishing a scientific paper on arXiv or another journal might help, as mentioned earlier. Re. PG alpha transparency anomaly, seems that my discovery was probably first but as anecdotal evidence is unsupportable. Also its been known since the late 1940s that chemically pure graphite is transparent to many forms of radiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conundrum1947 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That can work in some circumstances, but you have to take a great deal of care in citing your own work, as other editors will be suspicious that you are merely trying to promote yourself. Definitely check the rule WP:SELFCITE and you might also want to read WP:SPAM and WP:COI to be clear of the rules around this. --Krelnik (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to publish this in a magazine back in 2009 but the editor didn't think it was interesting enough for the general readership.

August 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm LizardJr8. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to The Nonce—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Nonce. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Under Age, you may be blocked from editing. Frank6292010 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Nonce. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Dan653. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Splatoon 3—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Dan653 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Splatoon 3. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Le Marteau (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.