User talk:Mgdyason

Conostylis aureus

Hello Mgdyason,

Thanks for having a go at editing Wikipedia.

With respect to Conostylis aurea, we don't normally have headings in plant articles (or any articles for that matter) with no information added under the heading. Having a heading "Pests and Diseases" with no information implies that Conostylis aurea has no pests or diseases. That, of course, is not true but I don't know the details of any disease or pests affecting that species. If you have some well-referenced information dealing with that subject, please add them to the page. I would be happy to help you to do that - all you need to do is ask by adding something to my talk page (below).

There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of pages about Australian plants and very few have the heading "Pests and Diseases". One of the very best (a "Feature Article") is Telopea speciosissima and it does not have that heading. I will leave your heading for a few days to see if you have added any details about the pests and diseases affecting this species, then I will revert it. Sorry!

If you are keen to edit Wikipedia plant pages, why not add information (with headings if you like) to those that are only "stubs"? (Stubs have very few, if any headings.) Some of them are listed in the "Category" link below. Your help in expanding them with well references material would be much appreciated.

Gderrin (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian plant stubs

Hello, Mgdyason, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – User:David Tornheim (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello, I'm Hayman30. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Queer— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Coccinellidae

This recent edit of yours leaves the passage you edited in rather shabby condition. Do you intend further edits? If you intend to leave it for others to fix, please simply perform a manual reversion of that edit. Thank you.If English is not your main language, I recommend that you propose edits on the Talk page for the article, rather than attempting to make them yourself.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually click on the specific link which I gave you? It shows the edit of which I spoke.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your version of the passage in question. Does it look OK to you?

"Coccinellids, beetles of the family Coccinellidae, are found worldwide. There are over 6,000 species described ^[1]. Common names given to Coccinellid beetles include ladybugs in North America[citation needed], and ladybirds in Britain and other parts of the English-speaking world[citation needed]. Entomologists widely prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles[citation needed] as these Coccinellids [insect]]s are not classified as Bugs but Beetles true bugs^[2]."

What alphabet are you accustomed to? Please examine your passage in the English Wikipedia article Coccinellidae, cited above, with respect to capitalization, spacing, punctuation and wording. It doesn't entirely make sense, and is not ready for public consumption. The Preview button is your friend.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Seago, Ainsley E.; Giorgi, Jose Adriano; Li, Jiahui; Slipinski, Adam (15 March 2011). "Phylogeny, classification and evolution of ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) based on simultaneous analysis of molecular and morphological data" (PDF). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 60: 137–151. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.03.015. PMID 21426943. Retrieved 14 February 2016.
^ White, R.E. 1983. A field guide to the beetles of North America. Peterson Field Guide Series #29.

Recent edit to Plural

Hello, and thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Plural article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Orphan Wiki 11:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Nihil obstat. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed another reference to a very clearly identified Wikipedia mirror on Nihil obstat. Please let me know if there is something that is confusing you. Kuru (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Freeknowledgecreator. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Maurice Merleau-Ponty have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, I'm WJ94. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Identity (social science) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WJ94 (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi Mgdyason. I have reverted some of your recent edits to Identity (social science) and Maurice Merleau-Ponty since they were not constructive. I appreciate that you want these articles improved but adding so many {{citation needed}} tags does not help to improve the article and neither does adding your own commentary within the article itself. Additionally, some of the templates you tried to add (such as {{relevance and scope}}) were not maintenance tags at all. I also noted that some of your edits around gender and feminism (such as this and this) indicate you have a particular point of view which you want to write about in these articles. Please make sure that you read our policy on Wikipedia's neutral point of view. I would strong advise that you cease editing these articles for now and instead begin a discussion on the talk pages of the articles you want to see improved, with specific suggestions. WJ94 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, given you apparent interest in gender related issues (based on some of your contributions in the last few months), I also just want to make you aware of this:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

WJ94 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Maurice Merleau-Ponty, you may be blocked from editing. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Freeknowledgecreator, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this one are never appropriate. I'm not sure exactly what you're up to, but you seem to be using Wikipedia as a blog to describe your own personal experiences. If you want to contribute sourced content, please make an unblock request and tell us what you'll do differently. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mgdyason (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

because the instance you offer as evidence that im not here to build an encyclopedia of truth is not clearly showing my intent is against accuracy of which an encyclopedia ought be. i mainly edit puncutation as most is very ungramatical, not that im an expert but am planning to change that. the instance you mention, i explained my actions in the post, and was hoping for a reasonable response. i note in the administrators newsletter you favour might over right which is given i suppose, ya cant go beating your head against the masses. oh but you can. so, why do you favour group consensus over reason? reason IS THE only way to get to truth. i might have to start my own encyclopedia, well i have, on insects. The reason i wrote my theory in wiki is firstly i will prove its truth, secondly, JSTOR offer Wiki on phrenology as its reference and throughout my tertiary degrees ive been informed that wiki is not a reliable sourse so we should not site from wiki. and when JSTOR, a database of academic journals cites wiki then one's world/ontology comes crushing down. so, i changed, added bits to phrenology so i could take a photo of it through JSTOR and wrap and apple in the screen shot and give it to my teachers Mgdyason (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

[1] Seago, Ainsley E.; Giorgi, Jose Adriano; Li, Jiahui; Slipinski, Adam (15 March 2011). "Phylogeny, classification and evolution of ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) based on simultaneous analysis of molecular and morphological data" (PDF). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 60: 137–151. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.03.015. PMID 21426943. Retrieved 14 February 2016.

[2] White, R.E. 1983. A field guide to the beetles of North America. Peterson Field Guide Series #29.

[1]

[2]