User talk:ADP85xzVcQD

Welcome!

Hello, ADP85xzVcQD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Arcadian (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Research Parasite Award for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Research Parasite Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Parasite Award 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. Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Research Symbiont Award for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Research Symbiont Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Symbiont Award 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. Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Due to the culture of the "experienced" editors, I am taking a permanent leave of absence from editing or using Wikipedia. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=I have followed all the requests by the editors. For instance, an entire paragraph of text was reverted on Pacific Symposium on Biocomputer because it didn't have a secondary citation, only a primary citation. The instructions for Wikipedia say a primary citation is sufficient, but the editor wants a secondary. So I revert, additionally adding the citation for "Greene, Casey S; Garmire, Lana X; Gilbert, Jack A; Ritchie, Marylyn D; Hunter, Lawrence E (2017). "Celebrating parasites". Nature Genetics. 49 (4): 483–484. doi:10.1038/ng.3830. ISSN 1061-4036." I explain this is a secondary citation to an article in a high impact science journal. The editor persists in saying it isn't a secondary citation. This is for a 20+ impact factor scientific journal not at all associated with the award, and the text of that paper describes the award and the first two awardees. The journal article is behind a paywall, but it is made available through PubMed at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710834/. I explain, and revert making further edits to add more citations. At that point, she/he asked me to move it to the "talk" page, so I did. You will see that text there now beginning with: "I have proposed the following section which two editors call promotional/spam/advertising. I hope someone can make them suitable and add them to the page. I am working to find more references.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)" You can also see the time. It is 12 hours later there is this comment, "curprev 15:54, 18 June 2019‎ Praxidicae talk contribs‎ 2,398 bytes -1,181‎ Undid revision 902331357 by ADP85xzVcQD (talk) per bbb23's last comment, get consensus on the talk page FIRST, the notion that the sources included are independent coverage is incorrect, they're listings and eligibility criteria. undo Tag: Undo". And now my account is blocked? Yet I'm the ONLY editor trying to get consensus. Meanwhile, I've been hunting down primary and secondary sources, building content, etc. ~~~~}}