User talk:198.111.162.10

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, 198.111.162.10. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2019
Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Chinese treasure ship— 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. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your claim about it not being constructive. If the sources of Niccolo de' Conti was only 2000 butts or 1000 tons, that makes a significant difference as the size of the ships by a factor of 2, and readers should know about it.  The Hakluyt Society translation is a primary source for the accounts of Niccolo de' Conti, and at this stage we can't say which translation is correct.

June 2019
Hello, I'm S0091. I noticed that you recently removed content from Voshon Lenard without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. S0091 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

January 2020
Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Michaela DePrince—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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Updates to history section - should the discussion of history of spectacles be removed and just reference the Wikipedia article on Glasses?
I made a few updates to the history section:

The first part of the history section indirectly referred to Needham's observations regarding Laufer's paper, and a couple paragraphs later Needham specific objections were mentioned. I moved Needhams direct observation on Laufer's paper to the first paragraph, so they were not as separated as they previously were, and revised the paragraph so it made it clear that it was Laufer's paper Needham was discussing, which wasn't clear from the way it was written.

Also, by moving the comment it made it clear that it was the later versions, and not the earlier ones, that had mentioned spectacles to answer an objection that was raised.

I added a reminder to make clear that Laufer's views had already been rejected by Needham and why. Writing in 1907, makes Laufer's work really dated, Needham is much newer. An article dated more than 100 years ago, and relying on indirect evidence at that, is makes a very weak case. Mainstream scholars support the view of spectacles being invented in Italy in the late 13th century, and scholars claiming they were invented in South Asia, are rather a fringe group. Wikipedia articles should not include every fringe theory simply, and South Asian invention of spectacles is definitely a fringe theory.

Since it was claimed that it was well documented in Sri Lanka, that documentation should be referenced. If the reference isn't provided, the entire paragraph should be deleted until it is, but I will give a chance for the required reference to be added. And since the date of King Bhuvanekabahu IV is after the existence of spectacles were well established in Europe, I am not sure of the point of the entire paragraph. It must be noted, that the making of lenses doesn't necessarily imply the making of spectacles. Lenses were long used for starting fires, and also seeing stones were used for magnification before the invention of eyeglasses, but the lenses were not used to correct vision. Nothing what was said shows the lenses being made by the Sri Lankan craftsmen were being made to correct vision.

The origin of the name of spectacles is interesting, but again, I question what purpose it has in this article, having nothing to do with optometry itself. In fact, the entire discussion on the history of spectacles in this article perhaps should perhaps be removed, and just refer to the Wikipedia article on "Glasses".