User talk:Lambertore

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Ozone worked, and it has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Addition of WP:REDLINKs to the "See also" section is rarely appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ozormesis


The article Ozormesis has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Zero hits for this term in Google Scholar and Pubmed. Several refs are about hormesis only. The first ref mentions an ozone treatment but does not use this word. Appears not to be notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to your request at WP:REFUND, the relevant policy, which is worth reading in full, is No original research. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. I tried to revise the article but AD:Orange Mike rejected it again. Some work are in progress regarding the ozormesis and I hope to come back to Wikipedia when more evidences will be published on peer reviewed int journal. Thank you again and sorry for that. Lambertore (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sorry, but it is clearly too early for an article. You wrote "We are trying to introduce a new definition, never used before... ", but that is exactly not what an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is for. Two key quotes from relevant policies:
 * WP:No original research: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery."
 * WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... Neologisms... for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."
 * There is also an inclusion criterion of notability, which looks for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, the test being, have people unconnected with the subject found it important and significant enough to write about?


 * There is a sister project Wiktionary but they too have fairly demanding inclusion criteria such as "Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year."


 * Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:F-Lamberto Re MD.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:F-Lamberto Re MD.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)