User talk:JohnnyAppleseed52

Hi! I've had to undo your contributions to Candelabra primula because original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you'd like to re-add the content, please find some sources to back it up. If you need any help, please let me know! Thanks! —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Lucas Thoms. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Candelabra primula, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JohnnyAppleseed52. You have new messages at Lucas Thoms's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How unfortunate about original research, observation-based evidence[edit]

I find it unfortunate that original research and observation-based evidence (in my case about certain plant characteristics, plant culture garnered from decades of experience working with certain plants) is deleted from Wikipedia notations.

By this account, Issac Newton's original observational research on the nature of light, the spectrum and the prism, the invention of calculus (a new science tool at that time)would be delted. Then, the subsequent discovery of infra-red light using spectra and the prism reported through direct observational evidence by a later scientist would also be deleted.

JohnnyAppleseed52 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)JohnnyAppleseed52 Grafton, OH[reply]

It's a good thing, then, that Newton published his discoveries via some venue other than Wikipedia. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]