User talk:Endymiona19
Welcome Endymiona19!
I'm Vincentvikram, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Vikram Vincent 13:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Given that you are new here...[edit]
...please stay away from all of the Administrators' various Project pages and Talk. Stick to editing articles. To date, all of your edits have been reverted or deleted. David notMD (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What was wrong with my article edits?
- Each of your three article edits made the content grammatically worse. Your other edits ("Best wishes to all.", "Nice", creating a Talk page for Articles for deletion/Amazon Prime Pantry, and so on) were vandalism. David notMD (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- ...although we don't think you mean bad. But still, gotta think about the oldies. GeraldWL 08:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
David notMD (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Amazon Prime Pantry, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GeraldWL 08:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
- Hi Endymiona19! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 00:38, Saturday, January 16, 2021 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Adoption Request[edit]
I'd like assistance in creating an article (about nay subject), the basics of editing, and how to do maintenance things, as I think I might be good at that'
- Hello Endymiona19, I see you are a new editor looking for help, so maybe I can assist. What are your interests? What do you do in your spare time? If you indicate these, perhaps we could find you a suitable article in need of improvement, for you to work on. My interest is biology, and if you wished, we could co-operate on writing a new article on a species of plant or animal. Let me know if the idea attracts you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your nice reply! I honestly don't know much about biology at all, but in my spare time I enjoy listening to country music, reading about cats (I'm a big cat lover) and playing chess and DanceDanceRevolution. My interests are cats, things to do with cooking, country music, and learning about different international places, such as Seoul. I'd love to work on a new article with you, perhaps I might learn something new that I didn't know before. Thanks for the wonderful ideas! Endymiona19 (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Where are you from? I am a WikiCup judge and noticed that you had signed up for the WikiCup here but did not know how to find a flag icon. I thought you might be from the United States, but the US icon I allotted can easily be changed. The easiest way to choose a flag would be to look at the other competitors' flags, and if you find one you like, copy the text they used in the {{flagicon|country name}} part. Or try any country/state/organisation name where it states "country name", and test whether it works by using the "show preview" tab. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for setting my flag for me! Yes, I am indeed from the US, so that flag fits me perfectly. I look forward to participating in the cup, and hope to get more than 0 points by the end :). Maybe I can find an article to improve and then nominate it for Good Article. I tried doing that with an article on a subject I really like, but was told that I'd need to make good changes to it before I could nominate it. Endymiona19 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good articles are a bit more difficult because they are not just articles that a reader might think good, but they have to meet the "Good article criteria". I suggest that you have a look at the lower half of this page, which is a category of articles about the United States which are classified as stubs and which could do with expansion. There's plenty of choice! My eye is drawn to Psoralidium tenuiflorum, which is a stub about a plant in the pea family from the southeastern United States. It is a short stub with four references and there seems to be plenty of information on the plant available online. If we were to jointly work on that we could nominate it for DYK. When it appeared on the main page, that would get you some points for the WikiCup! The article does not even mention what country or type of habitat it grows in at the moment. If you look at the closely-related plant Psoralidium lanceolatum, you will see the kind of things that could easily be added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happy to work on the proposed article with you, I think I would get some good experience that way. What is DYK? Is that the same thing as Good Article, just for shorter articles? I'll look at the related article to see where to start with my online research.
Just to add, I've put some information from a botanic website into my sandbox so I can work it in the next couple of days. I'll trim it down and put it into words of my own before I put it into the article. Endymiona19 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- OK. You can see information on DYK (Did you know?) here WP:DYK. If you do some preparation work in your sandbox we will see how you get on. You could click on the references already in the article, because the sources might well have some more useful information to add. I will not touch the article for the time being, because for DYK, it needs to be nominated within seven days of when we start working on it. The article is currently very short, with just 310 characters. For DYK it will need to be a five-times expansion (1550 characters), which should not be difficult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about Did You Know, that was very interesting. I think it would be great if we could nominate our article for that. I'll look for more information in the links already listed and work on my samd box info/draft over this coming week. Feel free to edit it as well and leave suggestions or corrections. I really appreciate your willingness to work on this with me!
January 2021[edit]
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Abortion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please note that a one-revert rule applies on Abortion Jonathan Deamer (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021, Catholic Church and abortion[edit]
Please don't edit-war on Catholic Church and abortion. I reverted your edit because consensus of Wikipedia editors holds that "anti-abortion" (rather than "pro-life") is the neutral term, just as "abortion-rights movement" rather than "pro-choice movement" is the neutral term on the other side. According to WP:BRD, when your edit is reverted, if you believe that your edit was correct you should take the matter to the talk-page. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I've only heard the term pro-life wherever I've read about abortion.Endymiona19 (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your personal view on terminology does not take precedence over the consensus of editors. You again restored your edit. Please stop edit-warring. Your misleading edit summary is contrary to Wikipedia policy on edit summaries, see [1]. Changing terminology from neutral to political-spin terminology is contrary to consensus and is not a "correction". Please self-revert. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ at the top of the talk-page [2], where this is explained. NightHeron (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:EDITWAR. If you persist in making changes in articles that are then reverted by other editors, that is considered 'edit-warring', and will lead to you being temporarily blocked, usually for 31 hours. Continuing to edit war can lead to longer blocks and permanent blocks from editing specific articles. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive editing[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Catholic Church and abortion, you may be blocked from editing. Veverve (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
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 abortion. 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.
Elizium23 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Psoralidium tenuiflorum[edit]
I have made a few edits in your sandbox. If you look at the top right of any Wikipedia page, you will see a tab marked "View history". Clicking on that tab for your sandbox, you can see a number of lines showing the past history of the page, with the time and date for each edit. I suggest you click on each past edit in turn to see what was done and what effect it had on the article.
- In my first edit, at 13.45 on 18 January, I changed the format of a reference that was already present in the article.
- In my second edit, at 13.51, I temporarily removed the categories, because we don't need them while the article is in your sandbox.
- In my third edit, at 14.03, I removed your "Racemes of Flowers" section because it was a copyright violation of the Illinois wildflowers site. You should not copy text from other sites, even into your sandbox, because it violates the copyright.
- In my fourth edit, at 14.12, I wrote a short description of the plant, giving the Illinois wildflower site as a reference. This was a reference that had been used earlier, so it was given a name and the repeat was achieved using <ref name=Illinois/>.
- I suggest you move the sentence "This flower can be found mainly in the central and southern states of the U.S." to the opening paragraph where it can form part of the lead.
- I suggest you find out all the states where this plant grows and make a better "Distribution" section. (The Illinois source is not so good for the distribution because it is only interested in Illinois!) You could also describe the type of habitat where the plant might be found growing, but always using your own words and not just copying text verbatim. Provide a reference to where you found the information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your work and suggestions! I'll work on these things and should have them done by the end of the week, on Saturday, if not sooner. Endymiona19 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: I expanded the section about where the flower can be found, and I also added a section about where it likes to grow as well. I made sure to put the information in my own words and cite the website where I got the information from. Endymiona19 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Your right to edit your Talk page[edit]
With certain restrictions, you are within your rights to delete content from your own Talk page. Given that the edit warring decision ended with a warning rather than a block, and your commitment to not edit in that arena again, you can, if you choose, to delete all the past talk sections about that. Some people leave everything, others delete stuff, and still others create an archive of past Talk, so not immediately visible, but can be seen by other by opening the archive. Nothing totally disappears. Even if you delete stuff, any editor visiting your Talk page and clicking on View history can see deleted content. For my own Talk page, a mix of deleting, archiving, and leaving in place. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, and I will think about what I want to do with the messages. For now I'll keep them so I don't "conveniently forget" about this issue and do something stupid again. It sounds goofy, but I've done something like that before and want to avoid it here. Endymiona19 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Understood. And FYI - I had a high revert rate early on because I did not understand that medical/health/diet articles had a special, higher standard for what are considered reliable references. David notMD (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Abortion debate[edit]
Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. --Equivamp - talk 18:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Pro-abortion Wikipedia[edit]
While it is nice of you to attempt to change a few phrases here and there on Wikipedia, it isn't going to fly. Wikipedia has a pro-abortion POV and the consensus has built up around that POV. We can't use the term "pro-life" here, but we can't use the term "pro-choice" either. Anywhere you see "pro-life" I have endeavored to put in quotes or it is a mistake that has been left over. Abortion is a highly contentious topic and there are now some editors who have watchlisted every related page, so you won't get away with changing them, and if you insist on edit-warring one more time then you will really be blocked hard. If you expect to edit productively at Wikipedia then you need to adopt the majority consensus and edit with that in mind. But most people just don't even stay. Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Well I had said earlier that I'd stay away from the abortion topic here, and I should have held true to that. I just saw some grammar/wording issues I thought needed to be fixed, and then it led to edits that others didn't like. I guess I'll stay away from the whole abortion topic here so I don't get into more trouble here. It's a shame about the pro-abortion POV here. Endymiona19 (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- The thing that's getting you in trouble is not abortion per se it's that you're insisting on editing your changes over and over again despite people's objections. That's not how it works here. When someone objects to your edit, begin discussion with them about how you can work it out. They will tell you why they think you're wrong. There are many many avenues of dispute resolution available to you if a simple discussion doesn't help. But many times, it can clarify a lot. Elizium23 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021[edit]
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) |
To Cwmhiraeth[edit]
@Cwmhiraeth: I wanted to thank you so much for helping me with editing the plant article and your willingness to guide me. I wish I could continue participating in the WikiCup and become a proficient editor here, but maybe it will happen in the future. For now, thank you again and farewell.
- Well, we achieved something useful while you were here. All the best! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes we did. I do hope to see you again here someday, when I'm actually allowed to edit here again. And I do hope our DYK nomination and the WikiCup both go smoothly Endymiona19 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a suggestion (in regards to potential unblock)[edit]
Endymiona19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Could my account be unblocked under the conditions that 1) I only use this account here on Wikipedia and 2) if I edit war or post anything inappropriate, I will be permanently blocked with no chance of appeal whatsoever? Endymiona19 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are community banned so no administrator may unilaterally lift your block, and your constant sockpuppetry means any appeal to the community will certainly fail at this time. It's clear you aren't interested in doing what it takes to be properly unblocked. It's also clear that a permanent block would not stop you from block evasion. I'm declining this request and removing TPA to prevent more timewasting. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2021 (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.
DYK for Psoralidium tenuiflorum[edit]
On 26 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Psoralidium tenuiflorum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the root of the slimflower scurfpea can be eaten raw or cooked, or ground up and used as an ingredient in bread-making? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Psoralidium tenuiflorum. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Psoralidium tenuiflorum), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)