User talk:24.204.40.34

February 2020
Hello, I'm DemocraticLuntz. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Platyarthron rectilineum have been undone because they 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. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2020 (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.

I quoted the reference and cited the HUD/EPA guidelines on the DIY paint test kits being unreliable and not recommended for use. If changing potentially dangerous information to relevant, helpful information is "unconstructive" then I don't know what to tell you. By continuing to post the availability of these kits without alerting readers to the fact that they do not work can lead to health problems in people who use them. I do this for a living, I have referenced the sources, one being the federal government, one being an accredited lead analysis laboratory. I used the language from those sites, not "unpublished commentary."

Check page 7-4 under chemical test kits.

February 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Lead poisoning, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

So the EPA/HUD guidelines that say "it is recommended that paint test kits not be used" is me using an unreliable published source (the EPA) to imply something that it does not explicitly say (I quoted it from the guidelines, it is explicitly said).

What is happening is that you are not verifying source material.

Inserting commentary into image captions
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I quoted the HUD guidelines with regard to the test paint kits directly, and referenced it. It is not personal analysis. I am a lead-based paint inspector and risk assessor by trade, and the EPA recommends that they not be used. Page 7-4 https://apps.hud.gov/offices/lead/lbp/hudguidelines/Ch07.pdf Your information is irresponsible.
 * See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The current article notes that kits are available, and that the EPA has a standard for them. The scope of the article is not limited to the United States and it's regulatory frameworks. 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's still not original research or personal analysis, as your personal analysis above states. If you want to change it because you need more references, fine, I will find more references. Your comments above about blocking me are incorrect. These kits are dangerous, they often throw false positives and negatives, and their inaccuracy is not limited to the regulatory framework of the United States. At the very least, the photo of a test kit should be one of the 3 that are actually approved. Otherwise, Wikipedia is misleading the reader and endorsing an invalid product.


 * In the future please indent your replies so other users can more easily follow the conversation. Also, please see the citing sources tutorial and the cite web template to properly cite sources instead of just adding URLs and make sure that the content on Wikipedia is unbiased. In addition, if you are a lead-based paint inspector, you may have a conflict of interest, which may cause you to be biased toward one side or another. Remember, Wikipedia is not an outlet for opinion, so instead of saying 'Wikipedia sucks' you could say 'xx% of Wikipedia viewers say that Wikipedia sucks'. Thank you. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

December 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Maxim (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)