User talk:Abetom
Abetom, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Abetom! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion nomination of Opiplasi[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Opiplasi, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
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. Praxidicae (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The article should not be deleted as it provides an important information in cell biology. The concept of hole formation (opiplasi) is discussed in detail in the paper. The concept of hole formation is well stated in the abstract. Usually when a new phenomenon is described, the naming is stated in the "Discussion section", not in the abstract. The knowledge of opiplasi is very important for cell biologists and students engaged in research as the new phenomenon in cell biology could help in the development of therapies for several diseases.
The article Fougaro system has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Perhaps this will become an encyclopedic topic in the future, but for now a stand-alone article is premature. The only source is one new primary peer-reviewed article that mentions fougaro only in one paragraph in the discussion; it is not mentioned in the abstract. The article has not been cited and there are no Google hits. The topic thus does not meet the general notability guideline
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The article should not be deleted as it provides an important information in cell biology and immunology. The study is very important in the field of immunotherapy. The study explains the fate of antibodies once it enters and leave the cell. To my knowledge, researchers do not write the name of a new phenomenon in the abstract section, rather they state it (or name it) in the "Discussion section". The knowledge of fougaro system is very important for cell biologists and immunologists as well as students engaged in research as the new phenomenon could lead to the development of better antibodies for several diseases.
September 2020[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mango. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Don't edit war over the etymology section which has been well-edited in a balanced, fair, accurate way, supported by a WP:RS source, over years. Zefr (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Mango 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.
There's an open topic on the talk page. If you don't engage constructively there, you will be reported for blocking to admin. Zefr (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2020 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Abetom reported by User:Zefr (Result: ). Thank you. Zefr (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Your edits at Mango[edit]
Your persistent addition of poorly sourced content at Mango is disruptive. If you do not discuss your contentious changes on the talk page before editing the page again, you will be blocked for disruption. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Next block will be longer or indefinite[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mango. You are on the edge of a long-term block. Leave the mango etymology alone if you are not willing to discuss it. Zefr (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
January 2022[edit]
Hello, Abetom. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.
Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.
Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.
Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add {{requestedit}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.
MrOllie (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)