User talk:MLearry

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button oder located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I noticed that in this edit to Technological unemployment, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Technological unemployment. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

A re-organization of information would be of help, since some parts in History suddenly talk about 'studies' and policy. My aim was to change organization with same information.

January 2019

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. 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 Abiogenesis 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Abiogenesis 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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Abiogenesis. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Tgeorgescu have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Werbung and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at User talk:Tgeorgescu. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Abiogenesis. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Tgeorgescu, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Please refrain from accusing me based on false claims and wrong assumptions. I have only exerted my right to express myself here, and I will continue to do so. If you keep accusing me with those limited "wikicodes", in wrong assumptions and false claims, I will have no other choice but to conclude that you falsely accuse anyone who simply challenges your beliefs by stating & defending a different opinion.

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary.

For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected.

You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola.

In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them.

In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages.

Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Consider this a formal warning, next stop is WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Did Edaham wrote that? Or was it copied by Tgeorgescu. Edaham, my content was not considered "ad nauseam", but never read in the first place. Allow me one question: Why you keep saying I modify the article? I have not modified the Abiogenesis article since I began these talks. Why you keep accusing me of that? I have not modified the article. Yes I have engaged in a debate with some here. But I thought that is why the "Talk" is there for. Now, perhaps they don't like my argument, they cannot debate it on real argumentative grounds (Edahman seemed to do the same, when he/she mistake defending an argument based on what is a duty and/or a right, with the sale of a product like coca-cola, and state the word "again" when it has no real measure of events re-occurring so they have to call a "wikicode" on SOAPBOX? Is funny, but then, I suggest, put the article on lock and then ask for anyone who want to change it to state the kind of change it will make... That way, at least I feel people can see better how this "non-democracy" of wikipedia (which is supposed to be fair and unbiased, and allow dissenting expressions) work.