User talk:Machinexa

This is a 'bare URL' ref: ^[1]

This is a minimal ref: ^[2]

This is the same URL incorporated into a valid reference: ^[3]

Please read Wikipedia:Competence is required. If you continue to add text to articles based on references that do not meet the standards clearly outlined in WP:MEDRS I will recommend that you be blocked from editing. No in vitro. No animal. No erowid. No individual clinical trials or case studies. No creating sections Medicine, Pharmacology, Toxicology, etc. without being able to cite review articles published in quality medical journals that summarize the findings of multiple clinical trials. David notMD (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Machinexa (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Machinexa (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Machinexa (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. This is because you persist in making edits to articles that do not meet Wikipedia standards despite several cautions and warnings to stop. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm i just tried to merge the data, and add sligtly a more data. Hmm. Didnt knew that was disruptive editing. Machinexa (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC) I m thinking of how i distubed the wiki environment.

All of your edits to Pomegranate have been reverted by a highly experienced editor. David notMD (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all i didnt add much except for fact that i tried to move under one section. I dont know how my edits are regarded harmful???

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Securinine. ... and numerous other recklessly edited articles. You are a problem editor because you do not follow WP:MOS, WP:CIT, and other formatting guides. You cause other editors to follow your history and correct errors and misinformation you place in articles. You will be reported to administrators. Last warning: slow down and learn the manual of style first before continuing with edits. Zefr (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You added a vitamin K ref to the Riluzole article. I removed it. Please be more careful. David notMD (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, you are tagging your edits as minor when they are not. Read Help:Minor edit. David notMD (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok I will try to be more careful and correct citatiom Machinexa (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to WP:MEDRS, as you recently did at Berberine. You are wasting time of other editors who feel obligated to watch over your edits in order to remove your persistent efforts to add in vitro and animal citations as justifications for adding medical/health content. Asking an editor (me) to look at what you did is no excuse for adding the type of content you have repeatedly been warned to stop adding. NO ANIMAL CITATIONS. David notMD (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok Machinexa (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a general, useful citation tool. Zefr (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

EROWID is not a valid reference for any function content, because it uses as its sources content that was not published in peer-reviewed journals. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok Machinexa (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, "Ethnobotany & ethnopharmacology of Tabernaemontana divaricata" is not a valid source for any function content, because while it makes statements about putative functions of chemical compounds found in this plant, when I looked at the references it cites, it is all to in vitro and animal studies. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok Machinexa (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically I won't edit much now but remove contents if inapplicable for wikipedia Machinexa (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

When I started editing, over ten years ago, I had a high revert rate because I persisted in using individual human trials as references. In addition, I was almost blocked because I was suspected of being an undeclared, industry-affiliated editor Hence my disclaimer on my User page). David notMD (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Machinexa (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC) I was quite busy for some days and will be but i will try to make less reverts. :)

Also, i will try to ciite and format my best, currently i dont edit that much but i try to correct other users mistake now

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It is about your persistent addition of content to articles with citations that do not comply with WP:MEDRS. This may result in you being permanently blocked from editing. David notMD (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Since it's the subject of a lot of your discussions, you might want to spell WP:MEDRS correctly (not MERDS, which sounds like the French word merde). MEDRS stands for MEDical Reliable Sources. Cheers. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Machinexa,

Thank you for creating HTTP parameter pollution.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

needs major expansion and improvement

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Elliot321}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

As you know, yesterday I edited the article you recently created for piperolactam A. I did that mainly because I got very irritated by the idea that it "is a novel compound .... [that] belongs to the class of drugs ...". Like many natural products, it has probably existed on planet Earth long before humans have and is certainly not a drug in the Wikipedia sense of a medication to which WP:MEDRS applies. No doubt you used these words in good faith after seeing the title of the sole citation (Amin et al.) you initially supplied in your draft article but you need to be aware that "novel" (or "new") and "drug" are weasel-words used by some cynical authors probably seeking their next sponsorship and are usually not to be taken seriously for Wikipedia purposes. As all chemists should know, every chemical is "novel" when first characterised!

I can see from this talk page that you have repeatedly been warned by David notMD and others that our standards for writing about medicines need to be particularly high and even though these standards don't necessarily apply to compounds like piperolactam A, we still need several reliable sources to show they are WP:NOTABLE enough to merit an article. In this instance, I had no difficulty in finding such sources and I hope you will agree that the article today is much better than you left it, albeit still hardly more than a stub. In fact, I'm not sure why Graeme Bartlett accepted the article into Main Space as it then was. Similarly, the article you created on, for example, Conophylline is in my opinion a candidate for deletion in its present poorly-referenced state — but given I know Steve Ley's group at Cambridge did a total synthesis it is certainly noteworthy: something no-one reading the article currently would be able to WP:verify. Given you were motivated to create it, I'm not sure why you have abandoned it in such a poor state.

Bottom line: please consider this a final warning that your contributions to Wikipedia need a) to focus on improving existing articles and b) to use reliable, preferably WP:SECONDARY sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Copying Michael D. Turnbull on my comment: I removed the Pharmacology section as premature, given that the one reference used is an in vitro study. Any suggestion that a compound extracted from a plant has medicinal benefits must be supported by published reviews of multiple clinical trials. As it is, the dietary supplement industry is plagued by aggressive marketing of products with weak evidence. I also removed the Pharmacology content and refs (fish?!?!) you had added to Thymol for the same reasons. And I will be reviewing other articles you have been editing. If you persist in adding content that does not comply with MEDRS I will recommend that you be indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up Conophylline. I have drawn a structure for the Chembox and I've got a few more references to expand the article. I'll add those soon. Note that MEDRS doesn't need to apply to all sources we use, only those that claim a human medicinal use or might be interpreted that way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Machinexa.

I answered your question at the Teahouse but on checking today I notice that you have never previously uploaded anything to Commons, so you might like some advice. Basically, the "best" license for Wikipedia is CC BY SA 4.0 which is the one on the diagram you wanted to use. We can't use material that has "NC" in the license as that means "no commercial use": despite the fact that WP is not itself commercial others who are could copy stuff from here.

The Commons upload wizard is accessed "here".. The main rule is to follow the prompts very closely and always be honest! So in the case of that diagram you say "not my own work" and use the URL where you found it to explicitly acknowledge where you got the image from. Then you repeat the CC BY SA 4.0 license. Once in Commons, it helps to add categories, such as "alkaloid" to the file so others can find it. Ping me back here if you run in to any problems.

In general, for chemistry diagrams you should only upload images you firmly intend to add to an article. The correct text to add it appears next to a "W Use this file" icon above the image: see for example "for vobasine".. Although .svg files are preferred to .png ones, I wouldn't worry about that too much unless you intend to add your own drawings. Are you now, or planning to be, a professional chemist? If so you should be learning how to create your own drawings with the proper software. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Structure_drawing for some details of what's available. I use BIOVIA draw, a free download for students and non-commercial use and Inkscape for further tweaks / conversion to .svg.

Your recent edits to existing articles have looked good for the ones I checked, so I hope you will continue to work on more chemistry and seek advice if in doubt, as you did yesterday. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Machinexa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Arecolidine".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Machinexa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Voacangine hydroxyindolenine".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Machinexa

I note that you have been editing Conophylline today. It is on my watchlist and the version I've just seen is at this oid . I note that there are a lot of cases with your recent references for the "Research" section where you've added an access-date but the rendering generates an error because access dates only work if associated with a URL. You need to deleted all the access dates because, for journal citations like these, there is no need to point out when you read the journal: the doi will always link to the correct place and there should never be "link rot".

You are otherwise doing a good job. My only comment would be that you don't need multiple pile-ups of references for the one statement in the (currently final) sentence. Just choose the best references — to reviews that are in Wikipedia terms WP:secondary rather than WP:primary, preferably, or to the latest paper if it cites the others.

Apologies if you were intending to do all that and I interrupted you! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, thanks Machinexa (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Machinexa! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Variants of SARS-CoV-2 that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. ArcMachaon (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks, especially for one word clarification. Sometimes i mark minor which is even not minor. I will try to not mark them as minor. I was editing at night so not noticed I minored B.1.620 Machinexa (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Betaine, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You are reckless in your choice of sources for content on diseases and health. Read and follow WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Betaine. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. This edit and many others by you indicate you are not familiar with English grammar. Practice in your sandbox and ask for help with using English at WP:TEA. Zefr (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

OH shit Machinexa (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

hi Machinexa! you don't need to remove answered questions, we have a bot that automatically does that for us (after a while of the conversation ending). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Machinexa, seems the link https://zenodo.org/record/1210527/files/57.Jasminum sambac.pdf is dead. Can you take a look into it? Thanks. I came acrose https://zenodo.org/record/1210527/ though. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)