User talk:Jessepv

September 2020
Hello, I'm Isabelle Belato. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hyperestrogenism, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.   Isabelle 🔔 20:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am an industry leading expert on hyperestrogenism, and while uncommon and archaic, it is called Pollens Voigt syndrome in 19th and early 20th century journals after a man, Sir Jesse Pollens Voigt that had previously not seen levels of estrogen. I believe that you have made a mistake here Jessepv (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! As the message I left earlier in your talk page mentions, I've reverted your edition because it lacks a citation to a reliable source. The one that was cited in that line did not contain that name. If you can find a source that mentions that name (it doesn't need to be available online, though that facilitates verification), I encourage you to add that information in the page alongside a citation. Isabelle 🔔 20:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jessepv. The problem with adding content on the basis that you are an expert in a subject and therefore know better than the rest of us is simply that anyone can edit Wikipedia, which means that people can, and frequently do come along and claim to have expert knowledge and post highly unreliable stuff. There are various reasons for that, including deliberate vandalism, sincere belief that what they are doing is right and that pretending to be an expert is an easy way to silence opposition, a sincere but unjustified belief in their own level of expertise, and genuinely being an expert but posting material on which other experts would disagree. Since in general we can't tell whether an editor's claim to have expert knowledge is reliable or not, we cannot accept such a claim as reliable evidence, and instead require published reliable sources.
 * Wikipedia policy is that when content has been challenged on the basis of lack of a reliable source, as has been done by it must not be restored without provision of such a source.
 * You should also look at the policy on edit-warring before again restoring any content to an article where it has been removed.
 * I can find no record of either Sir Jesse Pollens Voigt or Pollens Voigt Disorder, so even if what you say is true, it is probably not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I can, however, find information about a current student with the unusual name Jesse Pollens Voigt, by a remarkable coincidence. That prompts several thoughts related to your editing. JBW (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)