User:Meodipt/2018 talk archive

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 4-Methoxybutyrfentanyl into Tetramethylcyclopropylfentanyl. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I believe I am the sole author of the paragraph that was copied. Also the side effects and safety warning are shared between all these fentanyl analogues so it would be a little tedious to have to re-word it each time, there are dozens of such compounds. Meodipt (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be re-worded each time, as the material is released under license. Sorry for not noticing you were the original author of the prose. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Waitakere claim on Kauri Dieback
Hi; you've claimed that the Waitakeres are under increased pressure because all other nearby forests have been closed off, but the only citation you've given is a closure notice for one forest. Do you have a reference where someone talks about Waitakere walking-trail usage and nearby forest closures being a factor? It would be good to have a citation that backs up the statement. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not, or I would have put it in there. I'm fairly sure from talking to local residents that the closure of two of the available forest areas is a big factor in people being reluctant to comply with the voluntary closure of the remaining one, but I'm not sure anyone has done any studies to prove that. I guess without a better citation it probably constitutes WP:OR, however accurate it may be, delete it if you wish. Meodipt (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've just flagged it with a citation needed and we'll see if anyone else can come up with something. Thanks for your work on the article to date; I'm hoping to organise an editing event specifically to improve it and will let you know when it happens. The more the merrier. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Having a chat
Heya, can you email me via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Aethyta? Something regarding a upcoming Spanish study on cannabinoids (CUMYL-PEGACLONE and more). Aethyta (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Enobosarm shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)