User talk:Mgdyason

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) • SI)

---

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)

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)

---

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.