User talk:SwagBucks101101

Just starting my talk page. Will improve once I have time. Patience is a virtue.

Your revert in Epigenetics[edit]

Hello. You reverted my removal of this sentence [1] from the Epigenetics article. I removed it because an independent reliable source is needed to support the claim that this is the official society for cancer epigenetics research. I can't find any independent sources that establish the significance of this organization. Hence, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the article. You can respond on the talk page for the article. CatPath (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. CatPath (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. The mistake was on me. Sorry! SwagBucks101101 (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I was warned. SwagBucks101101 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Nigerien general election, 1989.

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 notice boards.
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, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is that disruptive? SwagBucks101101 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding a referenced figure from 95.1% to 95.2% is disruptive and pointless as are most of your edits. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wait.. being a wikignome is bad? SwagBucks101101 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my edits are just correcting grammar, and I thought you would app. that. SwagBucks101101 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, in that diff, the vote count to hundredths was more than 0.50, so I rounded. If this doesn't wrk, you should mention the exact figure. SwagBucks101101 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should really take the time to make sure you understand what you change, and that your change indeed is an improvement. For example, here you turned a yearly sum of 100 marks into 100 years, which makes no sense. This would need a reliable source for the plant's range. This is entirely redundant to the information already in the very same sentence. There's nothing wrong with being a WikiGnome, but if your rate of errors becomes too high, that's a problem. Slowing down may improve the overall quality of your contributions. Huon (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Peninsula Lake. Please stop! Your rate of errors in grammar and usefulness of content is quite high. You may be trying to help, but on average in the view of the multiple editors who are undoing many of your edits, it does not appear that you are succeeding. DMacks (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Neoveitchia storckii. Peter Sam Fan 19:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]