User talk:LadyMargo

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, LadyMargo. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dan653 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on civil discussion[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Vladimir Lenin. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go read their User pages and you will see that they are anti-Semites and then go look at the paragraph I'm editing, which is clearly written to present his Jewish ethnicity to be certain when that it is in question and with his main ethnicities presented as being in question when they are certain! They are reverting my edits because they are anti-Semites and they do not like the fact that I present the facts accurately!

I did not attack anyone. Statements of facts are not attacks. A person who murders is a murderer. A person who hates Jews is an anti-Semite. Nor do exclamation marks mean that I am not calm! Take your false accusations and leave my Talk page!

"Personal attack" has a non-physical meaning. If you insult or slander someone, that's a personal attack.

You need to read WP:Assume good faith, WP:CIVIL, and WP:No personal attacks. If you are not willing to abide by those rules, you need to find a different website to use. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you daft? And you claim to be an English major? Ha-ha. Again, I did not insult or slander anyone. A person who murders is a murderer. A person who hates Jews is an anti-Semite. Learn the difference between insults and statements of facts.

Last chance to agree with WP:CIVIL. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not civil? Are you serious? You are the one who is not civil. You made false accusations about me and where told to leave my Talk page yet you kept posting on it. Again, go learn the difference between slander and statements of facts. Hope your degree taught you reading comprehension. Good day/night!

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you some time to think about how everything you've been saying so far could be perceived as uncivil, without letting editing distract you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

LadyMargo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21639 was submitted on May 26, 2018 01:42:21. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Age of marriage in the United States[edit]

Please discuss any proposed changes on talk, and do not engage in an edit war. The new changes contradicted the sources cited in the article; the text was unencyclopedic, and it misrepresented the source. An article cannot be altered so dramatically without WP:CONSENSUS reached on talk page. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:42DD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puberty article[edit]

Regarding this and this, I suggest you read WP:Dead link, WP:Due and WP:Vandalism. My reverts of your edits are not vandalism. A source now having a dead link does not automatically mean that the source needs removal or that another source should be added. That line clearly has enough sources. It does not need more sources that make it a WP:Citation overkill case. "Age 10" is the typical starting age given for girls. Some sources state "9," yes, but age 10 is still more typical. I will go ahead and update the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT care about you opinion, KID! You are NOT a medical doctor and my source is reviewed by a medical doctor! Save your opinions for yourself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyMargo (talk • contribs) 20:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kid? Opinion? And you know my profession(s) now? Per above on your talk page, this section, and below, I don't believe that Wikipedia is a good fit or you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healthline is not a suitable source. Neither is medicalnewstoday, nor is a slideshow from WebMD. We already had better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were reviewed by a medical doctor, whose specialty is pediatrics. She clearly knows better than a man who claims on Wikipedia to be an "ER doc". Go read this and if you still dare claim that Healthline is not a good or suitable source, then you are truly daft! https://www.healthline.com/medical-team — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyMargo (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SIGN for how to sign comments on talk pages. Collaboration and assume good faith are required at Wikipedia so please tone down the attitude. Disagreements about references are sorted out by reviewing the reliable sources for medical topics, and then by discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. By the way, you might like to review James Heilman. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes on how articles are written here (and a couple of other matters)[edit]

We use professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

We generally avoid primary sources because those often require interpretation and we do not rely on editor interpretation.

We do not combine statements from different sources to arrive at a conclusion not explicitly found in either source.

Also, "Assume good faith" is a foundational policy here. All of the blue links lead to site policies that explain these concepts in more detail. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care for you opinions...

Learn what "opinion" means. What I linked are site policies. Those are not opinions. If you are not interested in trying to learn from or cooperating with others, nor in bothering with this site's policies, you can leave.

Learn what "vandalism" means, too. Undoing your edits for reasons based on site policies is not vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get lost, imbecile. Sick and tired of fucking monkeys of British descent think that they are smart but the dumbest nation in the world!

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to listen to your babbling, dickhead! You can block me all you want, I dont give a shit, fuckface. It's not a surprise that Wikipedia is full of errors and nonsense when people like you exist on here.

Talk page access revoked. I'd normally leave instructions on how to appeal the block now, but looking for the instructions might give you some time to calm down, grow up, take your meds, or fix whatever your malfunction is. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]