Jedzwarzywa
Hello, Jedzwarzywa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
Dear Jedzwarzywa, your repeated interventions are among the most extraordinary I have seen in many years of editing. I can only suppose either that you are looking at a different paper of Piast's, or are very tired or similarly incapacitated.
Whatever the case, I asked you plainly to discuss the matter on the talk page: it was totally incorrect of you to revert again without discussion. I have therefore started the discussion myself, and am now warning you directly that a third reversion on your part would be taken as direct disruptive behaviour.
I have now quoted the two passages in Piast's paper that the core of what I've written comes from; and I note that we appear to agree on the table, so I find it frankly incredible that you have seen fit to remove the table, twice, from the article even though it is plainly both correct and relevant.
If you have anything to say, other than "sorry", please do it on the article's talk page. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of The bubble theory for deletion
edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The bubble theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Hi, I would be interested to know why you consider this a "shady citation". Dimmock NJ, Easton AJ, Leppard K (2007). Introduction to Modern Virology (6th ed.). Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-3645-7. Graham Beards (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)