User talk:Eloerc

Welcome!

Hello, Eloerc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Food intolerance

Looks like you're getting the hang of it. I don't know when I'll have a chance to look over the article in detail. If you want some feedback sooner, you could try WP:EAR. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eloerc, thanks for pitching in at Food intolerance. You may wish to spend some time experimenting with the search capabilities on PubMed, which is the best free tool for finding papers that meet WP:MEDRS. Please note that it gives you ways to select "review" articles. These are higher quality sources than the research articles they are based on, as the reviewers add educated perspective when examining the research. They are usually written for a somewhat broader audience than the research papers as well, meaning they tend to be more intelligible to lay readers. Don't be discouraged if other editors disagree with your edits, that dynamic tension is part of what makes wikis work. We refer to it as the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. It is always helpful to discuss controversial edits first, but for more mundane changes it's best to just try it and see if it draws a reaction. Cheers, User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Your recent editing history at Denialism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Cisgender, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with content should go on the talk page

Please discuss such issues and article improvement on talk:Cisgender. You can add a wp:Template messages/Cleanup. See help:talk pages. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

When adding material about anatomy (female anatomy or otherwise), you need to source the material. And the source should be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Basically, it should be an academic source that is a secondary or tertiary. Really, per WP:Verifiability, you should generally be sourcing text you add to Wikipedia articles. You should stick to what the sources state. If you are changing the text without knowing if the source supports your changes, it's best to add a source that supports your changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an image. Someone else put it back. It looks like a prepubescent vulva. Also women have internal sex organs. You cannot tell if they are aroused by looking at their vulva. Eloerc (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you on the image removals. And, no, a shaved vulva does not automatically look like a prepubescent vulva. And as for "women have internal sex organs," they also have external sex organs. And, yes, one can clearly see sexual arousal when looking at this image. Do you not know what happens to the clitoris and rest of the vulva during female sexual arousal? An aroused clitoris does not look the same as an unaroused clitoris. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]