User talk:151.124.108.82

April 2024
Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ceiba pentandra, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 18:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no appropriate reference to give.  The published sources to which I refer are other websites describing the tree which appear on a Google search.
 * I visited the huge tree on Santiago island today, and my group and I found it sufficiently interesting to merit the addition of the text I have written to the Wikipedia article.
 * With respect, your removal of my draft is plainly an over-reaction.  There is nothing erroneous or controversial in my text, and  I suggest you restore it as written.
 * Thank you. 151.124.108.82 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The published sources to which I refer are other websites describing the tree which appear on a Google search" violates WP:SYNTH and writing your own observations from visiting the tree violates WP:OR. If you want to do that, what you want is a blog, not an encyclopedia. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What a disappointing response.  I have occasionally contributed to Wikipedia in the past, with similar information based on personal observation.   You must have changed your policy.
 * However, that does not excuse the curt and dismissive tone of your emails. Your suggestion of a blog is offensive.
 * Whilst I have sometimes contributed financially to Wikipedia, you may be assured that I will be disinclined to do so again.  A pity, because it has been a very useful tool in the past, full of "unreferenced" but nevertheless helpful or interesting detail. 151.124.108.82 (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The prohibition against using personal observation and other "original research" has been in the No original research policy since 2005, when the policy said: The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". As for the presence of content in Wikipedia that appears to violate that policy, we are all volunteers and it may take a while for someone to find and correct such problems. That does not mean that we should allow new instances of OR or SYNTH to be added to the encyclopedia. Donald Albury 15:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)