User talk:Ajax151

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep up the good work. Chillum  02:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Drug urban legends
Hi, thanks for some of the info at this article. You seem to know a lot on this subject. I'm wondering though about some of the urban legends you're adding... they seem so far fetched that I wonder if they are really that wide spread or known. For example, do a lot of people really think you have to add LSD to shrooms, or confuse the OJ glass legend for milk? One thing we have to be is careful of not actually making a super minor local tale into a more widespread one. Wikipedia is meant to report what is well known about a subject, not spread minority beliefs. NJGW (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Binge drinking
I'd politely ask you to review Reliable sources and No original research. It is important on Wikipedia to respect reliable sources. If you believe that a source is inaccurate, then you will need to another reliable source that agrees with you. I'm sure that you believe the changes you have made to Binge drinking are accurate; but without reliable sources to back them up, you breach our policy on no original research. The best place to discuss your concerns is at the article talk page. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Your recent edit to the page Binge drinking appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Binge drinking, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just fixed it. Sorry about that.Ajax151 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Age of drinking links in alcoholism article
HI Ajax, I disagree that the refs provided to support recent edits where adequate ... have brought the subject up on Talk:Alcoholism page. As a note it is very tricky to represent a minority view in articles - they need to stated in review type articles really, and one can't just use one or two single refs that go against the conclusion of reviews without great care in exceptional circumstances - and with concensus of other editors. Cheers Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the refs I added IS a review. And no consensus is necessary before adding it.Ajax151 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All content is by consensus, you're right we don't need consensus to add something new, but if someone disagrees they we have to try to find the best way to repesent view points Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 12:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ajax, had to revert again, just because you are convinced the discussion is over does not mean it is, in situations like this one should try to politely wotk things out.. not just resolutely stick 'i am right, you are wrong' if an issue cannot be resolved this way an outside opinion should be sought. Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited Cortlandt Town Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia
Hello. I see you've highlighted a study at schizophrenia. But we don't write encyclopedia articles by highlighting individual studies. See WP:MEDMOS. I did a search and it turns out that the study you cited has been cited 7 times (though I see none categorized as reviews). The paper was cited most recently in, for example. We don't encourage the citation of primary studies here. Cherrypicking/POV/undue weight issues are raised by it. How about you see if a secondary source mentions the things you want to include? We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. We can't highlight all primary studies. It is out of our scope. Biosthmors (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will add secondary sources as I find them, such as the one you mentioned above.  However, primary sources are allowed in some circumstances as a last resort.Ajax151 (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The secondary source I linked above devotes a paragraph to the 2009 paper, but it differed somewhat from the summary you included. For example, this text stratifies based on sex, instead of saying adults. "Based on estimates of schizophrenia incidences and rates of light and heavy cannabis use, it has been shown that only a minority of cannabis users will go on to develop a psychotic illness, and that in order to prevent one case of schizophrenia in the highest risk category (adult males aged 20–24 years), 2800 heavy cannabis users would have to be prevented, rising to over 10,000 for light users. These numbers more than double for women in the same age range." Happy editing. Biosthmors (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you using the secondary source to verify the text? Because you repeated the error. Biosthmors (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just fixed it.
 * That still understates the numbers for women, as you can see from the text I quoted. How about we just summarize the main point? "In young adults, it has been estimated that several thousand heavy users would have to refrain from cannabis in order to prevent one case." Biosthmors (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I will do so.

May 2012
Your recent editing history at Schizophrenia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I am contacting you about a section you wrote in July 2010,. One of the citations given was not properly formatted, and so remains unclear. I have started a section about it on the talk page of that article, so it would be very helpful if you could go there and give any information you still have (or can recall) about the source. Thanks a lot. TimofKingsland (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation has been fixed. Thanks for the heads up.Ajax151 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sales taxes in the United States
The paragraph you edited concerns the highest and the lowest sales taxes in the U.S. If what you say about Puerto Rico is true, then the right thing to do is remove the mention of Puerto Rico entirely. (If Puerto Rico actually assessed a VAT of 10.5%, that is worth a mention along with the dates it was in effect. If they repealed it before it ever took effect, I think it's not worth a mention.)  Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of The Great Bust Ahead for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Great Bust Ahead is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Great Bust Ahead until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Bromhexine and Sars-CoV-2
I liked that you added the section to Bromhexine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bromhexine&diff=next&oldid=981378237

But there's one user that appears to be very experienced at Wikipedia that's reverting changes that I think are "good". Just because the person has a lot of Wikipedia experience doesn't mean there's no bias, though.

I'm not very experienced at Wikipedia editing, but I wonder if the rejection of your section really should have been reverted.

Thank you! Of course it should not have been reverted. Ajax151 (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This revert was justified because it is unverified, possibly non-replicable lab research (see WP:MEDANIMAL re: in vitro studies) and speculation about mechanisms that "might" occur or have future "potential"; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL, and is not a blog or journal article where it might be acceptable to speculate about how a drug works, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8. We use well-vetted reviews published in high-quality sources for medical content, WP:MEDRS. For further background, see WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rasa von Werder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biophilia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just fixed it now, good catch. Ajax151 (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rasa von Werder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Promotional tone and editing on Rasa von Werder and Matriarchy
May I suggest that, instead of reverting removals of redundant content to promote this BLP in other articles, you instead remove the inappropriate, promotional tone from the Rasa von Werder article itself? Do you not see the problem with how it is written? - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rasa von Werder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)