User talk:Taseck1

Withania somnifera

Any additions to any article that make claims, however vague, about medicinal or health benefits must comply with WP:MEDRS. In the broadest terms, this requires tertiary, or sometimes secondary, sources that review multiple research papers and draw firm conclusions that are not liable to misinterpretations. Your additions to Withania somnifera fail that standard by a long way. Please do not add this material again until and unless supported by appropriate tertiary sources. Thank you Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're not allowed to state that data exists in a peer-reviewed journal? But you are allowed to claim that it 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 exist? (see the previous wording) The whole reason I added that information was simply to make it plain that the "authoritatively" negative statement was not authoritative.

Those same criteria you cite indicate that the references used to make the negative statement also fall far short of the requirement.

I'd be perfectly happy if those, also inadequate, references were removed. Taseck1 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Esna Navigation Lock on the Nile River

Hello, Taseck1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Esna Navigation Lock on the Nile River, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]