User talk:May Monique Ocean

Welcome!

Hello, May Monique Ocean, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to February 22. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! WQUlrich (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

day-of-year articles

Hi, I noticed that you've made a number of edits to day-of-year articles. Please be aware that all new entries to those articles, whether event, birth, or death, must include an inline citation to a supporting source. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at May 24, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learning how to edit on Wikipedia

The

Adventure

Hi May Monique Ocean!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Continuing to add new entries to day-of-year articles without a source is disruptive. Please read WP:DOYCITE and WP:DOYSTYLE. I can't tell if you have not discovered how to read your own Talk page or if you're deliberately choosing to edit this way after the problem has been pointed out to you. Since you have not responded to any of the notices here, if you edit another article without a source, I'll ask that your account be blocked from editing until you engage with other editors. On Wikipedia, communication is required. Schazjmd (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’m just learning, so I apologize. I just figured out how to post sources. Thankyou May Monique Ocean (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, you found the talk page!

I'm relieved. We do appreciate people adding to the articles, it's just that the day-of-year articles are going through a massive cleanup right now and so we need sources for all new entries. Since every new entry has to link to another Wikipedia article, you should be able to find a source in that other article that you can use in your edits. (And if you'd like to help add sources for the existing entries on the pages, all help is welcome!) Thanks, and happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

Hello May, I can see you've tried to be constructive and add a source to your edit on May 24. Unfortunately, we can't use Wikipedia as a source in almost all cases. Check out WP:CIRCULAR for details. I've gone ahead and pulled the reference (albeit only moderately reliable) from the article and added it to May 24. Thanks for your efforts and let me know if I can help. Toddst1 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will fix May Monique Ocean (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Case for an Inner Twin Brain

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as The Case for an Inner Twin Brain, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. 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. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science can hardly be considered inappropriate. It does not suffice to say that an article already exists under chimerism (Genetics) when “The Case for an Inner Twin Brain” article is not relegated solely to Chimerism involving the absorption of a FRATERNAL twin only, but includes conjoined twins absorption/conjoined twins who are IDENTICAL. May Monique Ocean (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your article...

From postings you've left in various places I see you're having trouble with your article. There are a number of pointers I'd like to offer you:

"Science can hardly be considered inappropriate" - it isn't. Pseudoscience definitely is. Referring to "medical wonders" positions your article in that area.
Quoting Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers while ignoring all the other policies won't advance your argument.
A title starting "The Case for...", unless it's the title of a book or film, sets your article up as a likely violation of Wikipedia's requirement that we take a neutral point of view. It also falls foul of the house style for how we capitalise in article titles.
Rather than asking for your article to be restored to mainspace (not going to happen), try asking for it to be restored to draftspace as Draft:The Case for an Inner Twin Brain (or a better title) where you'll be able to work on it, with collaboration, relatively undisturbed.
Find a WP:PROJECT where you can ask for help, advice & collaborators.
Read WP:YFA.

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: — using “medical wonders” does NOT imply pseudoscience! —I did not “ignore all the other policies”. I simply read the “Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers” article that made me feel safe to be “bold”, and stating further words that conveyed to me: to express and write without trepidation, and that if I was “thwarted” by those who would “bite the newcomers”, that there would be recourse for me and others who may find all the rules and regulations so daunting that we would not even attempt to move forward in any fashion let alone bold, and so limit Wikipedia to only those who have the time and/or money to learn or buy the expertise of writing a Wikipedia article that won’t get deleted. —The title stands: “The Case for...” says precisely what I want it to say in that it suggests a theory is being examined by many, and so reinforcing Wikipedia’s neutral point of view. —I could have had collaboration with my article up and running as it was before it was deleted... could I not?!

If Wikipedia is true to their words as spoken in the “Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers” article, then I think the ones who put those words down will be only too happy to see my article be reinstated as is— to stand as a positive example and influence that puts weight to their words!! May Monique Ocean (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to mention a minor formatting issue: Wikipedia uses straight quotes ("blah"), not curly quotes (“blah”) (see MOS:STRAIGHT). Thanks! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bit the newcomer's is not a blank check to write what they will. That simply means don't jump the gun and threaten them with blocks etc. You have not been bitten because your page was nominated for deletion. You can insist you're right, but you have I think, 4 established editors that are trying to help and point you in the right path and you've become fixated that this article should be allowed to stay because of your newcomer status, simply put it doesn't. We don't need a "case" for anything, we require scientific and reliable 3rd party sourcing, the enyclopedia is here to present information not persuade or make a case. IF you actually read the guidelines on publishing an article, you might have a snowball's chance of getting it published through Articles for Creation but if you don't change any of what is being suggested it would be denied quickly. I actually ado AFC and I can assure you that tenure of the editor doesn't factor into anything we publish. It may help to read the last part of Don't bite the NEwcomers..."One common error among newcomers is to create an article in mainspace about themselves, their garage band, or about their original theories on a certain topic. One way to deal gently with this is to userfy the article, and leave a note saying why. {{nn-userfy}} is designed for userfying autobiographical articles. The remaining redirect can be flagged for deletion using {{Db-rediruser}}. Userfied articles on bands could be tagged with {{PROD}}, since they tend to hang around. New articles about a person's original research and theories could have a note appended explaining WP:OR. It is sometimes helpful to direct new users to alternative outlets." Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have forgotten what my article said. I will post it here (see below) so you can see for yourself that the “cases” in my article involves actual people who by the virtue of their unique form of “chimerism twin-ship” and “conjoined twin-ship” give the scientific/medical basis to substantiate the “inner twin brain” as a viable theory worthy of further scientific exploration. Both cases are supported by third party sources: Genetic Proof of “Inner Twin” Existing Within the Human Population: Documented Research in the field of Genetics reveals that some individuals possess an “inner twin” (at least in part), via a condition referred to as Human genetic chimerism. [1]Consider this incidence where a woman’s genetic makeup enabled her to give birth to three children, two belonging to her fraternal twin sister and one to herself: In 2002, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine describes a woman in whom tetragametic chimerism was unexpectedly identified after undergoing preparations for kidney transplant that required the patient and her immediate family to undergo histocompatibility testing, the result of which suggested that she was not the biologic mother of two of her three children.[2] There have been other cases documented similar to that of the woman mentioned above— whereby the evidence of chimerism that’s invisible to the naked eye becomes known due to DNA evidence (a field in itself that very new). DNA evidence has since revealed chimerism with hermaphrodites (some people advocate to replace the term with intersex). There is enough evidence for us to consider the very real possibility of other fully functioning organs within an individual that belongs to their twin, and as the title of this article implies— evidence of a “twin brain” within. Case of Conjoined Twins Whose Read Each Others Thoughts: Krista and Tatiana Hogan (born October 25, 2006) are Canadians who are conjoined craniopagus twins. They are joined at the head (the top, back, and sides). They share a thalamus which connects their brainstems. Through this shared brain tissue structure and the interconnected neurons, one brain receives signals from the other brain and vice versa. [3] ^ "Which Half Is Mommy?: Tetragametic Chimerism and Trans-Subjectivity". ^ "Disputed Maternity Leading to Identification of Tetragametic Chimerism". ^ "Inseparable: Ten Years Joined At The Head". May Monique Ocean (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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 noticeboards.
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.

What was the point in asking for the undeletion of your article when you are obviously in possession of the material, having posted it to Bbb23's talk page and your own talk page just two hours before? You've twice been told that draft space is the way forward. If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, or working within its five pillars, then you might like to find another platform for your work, maybe Reddit or one of the Stack Exchange sites? Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at March 22, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-adding Martín Vizcarra to March 22. ~~The source was only needed in his biography, not in the list as well.~~ The list is intended to move traffic around the wiki so adding an external link to your source wasn't how things are usually done. WP:EL is the policy page if you want to read more on it.

It's also useful to use the "Show preview" button before "Publish changes", so you can check how it looks. In this case the - should have been an – (–) to match the look and feel of the other lines. Hope that helps. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I got that wrong. They changed the policy - WP:DOYCITE. A reference is now needed in the list as well as the biography. Thanks, Hell in a Bucket for putting me right.

Putting the reference in the list as you did on Martín Vizcarra was what was needed here, not a bare external link, but hey, we all make mistakes. Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hey just a line of encouragement, glad you decided to stick around. I reinstated your edit here [[1]] as no other entry on that page is sourced. Thank you for sticking around.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was wrong you did need a source but hey still glad you stuck around. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]