User talk:Visionhelp

October 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Effective microorganism has been reverted. Your edit here to Effective microorganism was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://trademarks.justia.com/789/44/effective-microorganisms-78944425.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

—

Thanks the welcome. Sadnessly after these years I just am able first now to discover this message. Thanks the message. That the posted link had to be - and automacilly - deleted, shocks me. OK. The "external links guideline" not now, please. That this link is in this list for to be deleted automatically just is already a represantation, what ever the reason will be. OK. It is good - for now -, to know, that this was roboted deleted, but knowing: the link on a black-list to be deleted automatically, just only getting a guess. (I just have enogh troubles in the german wikipedia - [] -, where I can not contact, because of being banned, and my anonymous eMail-Account does not work anymore (for sending).) Thanks the interesst. --Visionhelp (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of No till garden


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on No till garden requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Praxidicae (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No till garden, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dung and Robert Hart ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/No_till_garden check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/No_till_garden?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 06:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Disambiguation is a good thing.
 * For dung, I wouldn´t have thought, because I think: more for manure.
 * The many rules to this topic to study, sorry, no, please.
 * To me it is very strange, there is no article dung. But OK. But the problem with more names for one thing seems to be a general problem.
 * The disambiguation page is - for my understanding - a good page to find the fitting further ongoing existing wikipedia articles, when listed there. --Visionhelp (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert Hart at opportunity to edit again I will change to Robert Hart (horticulturist). Thanks.
 * --Visionhelp (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of No till garden


Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at No till garden. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fuddle (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is now the second nomination to speedy deletion. (About 8 hours ago the first nomination was gone.) :
 * And but NOW I cannot contest. :
 * This is very insulting, "hoax" and "vandalism". WITHOUT naming only one, to be able to correct it ... :
 * Not only nominated, but already deleted. And redirected to an other article. Thank You very much wikipedia ! (Both reasons for both nominations are untrue.)
 * --Visionhelp (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Ruth stout, how to have a green thumb, content.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ruth stout, how to have a green thumb, content.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 08:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Other copyright law question, picturing the site of a book, the content, did make me confusing, that I could not decide, that this screen-picture on PC was done by me. Until now.
 * I did add the ´PD-self´. Visionhelp (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ruth stout, how to have a green thumb, content.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ruth stout, how to have a green thumb, content.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank You, Salavat.
 * The photo was used for in this "Talk" page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ruth_Stout#Works_-_the_garden_books_marking, but which is already removed now, not by me.
 * There are lots of exceptions in the copyright law Talk:Ruth_Stout, Copyright_law_of_the_United_States
 * And from books may be used quotations.
 * But whether this is possible (within the copyright law) for the content page of a book, I can imagine, but I do not know.
 * And despite of this, it is possible, that wikipedia does have an own oppositly rule, independent of the laws.
 * --Visionhelp (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2021
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Human nutrition for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. ''The talk page is for discussion to improve the article, not some blog where you can try to understand what's in the article. Please stop your rambling.

It's evident also that your understanding and use of English are poor. Any editing you do on the English Wikipedia will require work by editors to correct your errors. Perhaps you would enjoy the Wikipedia experience more by using the encyclopedia in your own language. I suggest you move on to that other encyclopedia now.'' Zefr (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "The talk page is for discussion to improve the article, not some blog where you can try to understand what's in the article":
 * This is my intention "for discussion to improve the article" !
 * If this is not being realized, well, then I will stop it.
 * I do not want to inconvenience.
 * I will still add a source to iron deficiency as most deficiency in the world to my example, in the "Talk" page. And then I will end my support to "Talk"s in any Wikipedia article !
 * But what is did saying to my english: well, my ´native´ german do many Germans not (want or can´t) to understand, OK. But I only do translate this my german wordings to english. This MUST not be better there as for the germans. But in german it is about, what I say as content, but even Germans are able to dis-credit the my use of the german language. But there for me is very clear: it is about the content, or it is just not wanted to have to THINK, sorry. And: But "use of english is poor" is just very offending and hurting and insulting!
 * To "Any editing you do on the English Wikipedia will require work by editors to correct your errors.":
 * Because of I DO NOT DO any edits on Wikipedia articles, it is just a lie, to me and to all here, this claim.
 * And one may be able to label a global deleting, on the Ruth Stout "Talk" page: as "correct my errors"; instead of just talking to/with me.
 * But Wikipedia has not a space for such, I just can see. OK. So, what.
 * Visionhelp (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Multiple sclerosis, you may be blocked from editing. Stop using the talk page as your blog to post quackery nonsense. Zefr (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Visionhelp, I saw your updates to the talk page on MS, especially the DOI 10.1136 / jnnp-2017-317101. I looked into that. It is a phase IIa trial with less than 40 study subjects. Although this is a higher quality source than your original post, it is still considered a primary source and not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Please see WP:MEDRS for more details on the types of medical sources used for medical wikipedia articles.

Thanks for your interest,

Lukelahood (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To Zefr
 * "quackery nonsense" is not a factual argument. It is insulting and discrediting, which is never appreciative, as not also kind.
 * But it is enough for justifying to remove all the note to that Alternate treatment with incense removed (into history) in the "Talk"(!) page, which is the intention as I have to see. OK. I am off from Wikipedia. Thank You. Saves lots of times and works and anger.
 * Visionhelp (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Lukelahood
 * "phase IIa trial" does hopefully not say the same as "quackery nonsense" despite I am taking it this way. But it is not the first time that I have to face: Wikipedia has no interessts in knowledge and truth and developments, but this is just my impression. OK.
 * Visionhelp (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)