User talk:Neverman4

Please do not copy content from external websites
Hello Neverman4, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Asclepias have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I am also concerned that all of your edits are referenced to the same site. MER-C 12:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Neverman4 response to comments yes i am new, not trying to cause problems. yes they are from my wife's site - she does a ton with what are traditionally referred to as weeds. She gets over 500,000 visits a month - which is small compared to wikipedia but should demonstrate that it is not a fly by night site. NOTE: That I know of I have NOT posted any copyrighted material. And as it was fully deleted I could not figure out what was flagged as copyrighted?

When i did a search I found a statement on Queen Anne's lace that was not correct (at least not in demonstration in 5 years of live trials with Blueberries in Wisconsin). Which is what led me to want to update. After that i looked through a number of Wiki's (as you can see) and found some other missing information. Also found missing information on a few other "weeds" - and i linked back so people could find the correct information. The link is attributing and it is my wifes and we agreed to the "copyright" based on the posting information. I found a number of specific items missing such as incorrect statements and missing information and was adding on other wiki articles - which i gave her website references.

Note I didnt try to force link as I could probably have linked recipe's or some other junk but did not, as that is and was not the intent as it appears some other links have done.

I am ok with deleting her site as a reference if that is what is bothering you - but I would still like to see the accurate information posted. That is why Laurie created her website, so we wanted to share the info we have generated into the Wikipedia. If we just post the info without a link to her page, ie photodermitits, how could the text prove the details?? as she has done the testing and demonstrated it??

Specifically as an example, the photodermititis post my wife created after getting burned by sap: That information is direct, factual, was researched, there are photographs of the results, and she spent time digging to find the correlation on the moisture and increased risk - I assume based on reading the links and other post rules, that would not qualify as its only a blog? so then others may be at risk because a university / institution didnt post it even though it is documented??

Also somebody deleted the info on lavender - again a direct experiential addition noting the aroma. That doesnt need to link back but again how would you have any reference if you dont want to use the blog. I cannot find any "paid study" that would clearly note that common lavender has a different aroma/smell than the more floral Lavandula angustifolia species. Could care less if the reference is there, but she did get the info and it wasnt on the Wiki and it is valuable to the public.

Also if her blog is not acceptable, how are all these ok? (just on lavender alone) https://purplehazelavender.com/lavender/cooking-lavender/ and others in the section? Or http://www.havocinthekitchen.com/lavender-marshmallows/ or https://livingonagreenthumb.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/lavender-12-uses-beyond-potpourri/ or http://www.joys-of-lavender.com/lavender-tree.html or https://whatscookingamerica.net/Lavender.htm or https://backyardville.com/natural-mosquito-repellent/ or https://whatscookingamerica.net/EllenEaston/LavenderScones.htm

I felt they were legit but maybe I should be deleting every link or comment that links to a Blog? Is it legit to just ADD the info without where it came from? Ie the obvious facts related to: plantain, sage, and so on.

This also got cut: Sage is a good source of several B-complex groups of vitamins such as folate, thiamin, pyridoxine and riboflavin. It also contains Vitamin-C, Vitamin-A (as a carotenoid phytonutrient), beta-carotene and Vitamin K.

- it is true and was referenced and cut as spam so my impression is this is just trolling? How the hell is adding the information on the vitamins (that isnt there) spam?? As I could see eliminating the link if you or someone else feels like its bad somehow, but the rest doesnt make sense? And again - eliminating the information altogether is not helpful. (WebMD has a bit of the info so maybe link to that -only issue is it doesnt go into the history or not the vitamins. And I could go through and list EACH separately ie https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/herbs-and-spices/sage.html does list just Vitamin K - (which is what she did to do the research) but we wanted to reference them all.

Adding information about the value of what other people refer to as weeds is what i am trying to do - and simply deleting my add's is not helping. Maybe just delete the stuff you dont like??

Please clarify.


 * I can't answer all of your questions, but will touch on a few. First, please read what sources qualify as "Reliable Sources" on Wikipedia by going to WP:RS. Blogs, personal websites, etc., do not generally qualify. Some key quotes from that Wikipedia guideline: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ; "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (this especially applies to science articles, including plants) ; "content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums,..." (that would include your wife's website).


 * Thus, those lavender article blog references are not acceptable. In such cases, the best thing is to find a reliable source, rather than trashing the article, unless the information there is irrelevant or not accurate.


 * WP:Verify is also worth reading. It has more detail on what is a reliable source. If you disagree with an editor about a specific source, you can take the dispute here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. There are many editors who are well versed in reliable sources who will resolve any issue.


 * You should also read about editing with a conflict of interest, which applies also to inserting links in references to book or sites that you have a relationship with: WP:COI.


 * These things just touch on Wikipedia policies. I've added a Welcome template below with more links. It really would pay for you to learn how Wikipedia works. It would save you a lot of wasted effort and disputes. I spend very little time on Wikipedia these days, but have edited many plant articles in the past. You can get a lot of help from some very good plant experts by going to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants. Feel free to drop in there with questions about plants, reliable sourcing of plant articles, appropriate information to add to plant articles, etc. Happy editing! First Light (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Neverman4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! First Light (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)