Welcome!

Hello, Monado, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - Jersyko

Do we really need stubs for each one of her books? Maybe it could all be incorporated into one article on Connie, and then break it up later if the article gets too long. Having all of these stubs seems a hard way to learn about her books, because of all the clicking one would have to do. Maybe just put a synopsis of each book on her main page, making a separate page only for books where you (or anyone else for that matter) have a lot to say about it, or, again, if the main page gets too big. Just a suggestion... Chuck 05:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chuck! I'm not sure how to get a reply to you. I just saw that the stubs were there, for the most part, so thought I'd fill them. I think it's a good idea to have the books all on the Connie Willis page. Do you want to move them? I'm planning to go to bed very soon. Mona --Monado 05:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Word salad article

Hi, Jake. I don't feel strongly about this, but as an information designer I felt that the information in the article could be scanned more quickly if the two uses of the term were grouped, contrasting the more technical sense of deliberately misleading content with the everyday use as diagnosing faulty thought. Let's say that I would have understood it more quickly if it had been so grouped. I might even move the everyday meaning to the beginning of the article. Please let me know if this makes sense to you.

That is fine. Looking closely, I don't know why I reverted your edit. I removed the above warning and rolled back my changes. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 15:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you raised the issue at Talk:Abortion#Results of banning abortions, perhaps you'd care to weigh in on the resulting discussion? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MEDRS regarding the use of primary studies versus high-quality secondary reviews befitting of a featured article; it might be helpful if you would raise your suggestions on Talk:Autism before making changes to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, excellent! I wanted to use a well-written secondary source but I thought it wouldn't be considered authoritative enough. Monado (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article explains how to find high-quality secondary reviews (which to my knowledge have all been incorporated into the autism article), such as expected in a FA-level article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• On the other hand, the information that I added, which someone objected to because it was original research," was the source of the graph that was already featured on the page, supposedly showing an increase in autism. What I added showed that the apparent increase was (a) the result of trade-offs with other diagnoses and (b) trivial compared to other disabilities.

I've removed the following Books LLC reference:

• Recognition: The DRS has a chapter in the book: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Running-Clubs/Books-LLC/e/9781155892900 (Books LLC, 2010)

See: User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources and Amazon.com controversies#Sale of Wikipedia.27s material as books. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I thought it was a kind of odd-looking company but wanted some sourced running plans, etc. and couldn't find anything specifically wrong with it. Monado (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monado. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Ian_Bell_.28musician.29.
Message added SPhilbrickT 16:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I removed your edits to medical abortion and abortion that compared abortion mortality rates to childbirth mortality rates. I think that what you added was a bit overkill for something that can just be summarized in a few sentences at most. I am curious though about one thing: childbirth morbidity and mortality rates likely differ quite a bit based on whether the child is born at a medical facility of not. Do you happen to know what those individual statistics might be? NW (Talk) 04:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that explains why, when I went to delete part of it that I thought was too much detail, it wasn't there. Thanks, loads. I've seen too much propaganda about how dangerous abortion is, as well as the wholly-made-up "Abortion causes breast cancer" crap, to think that it's entirely irrelevant. What we need are more up-to-date figures. And no, I do not. Since they supposedly covered U.S. abortions over six years I imagine that the researchers did their best to minimize sources of bias. Monado (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sure, I definitely agree that the sources you cited are pretty good, even if the JAMA ones are a bit outdated. I just think we already covered it fine in the first paragraph of Abortion#Safe abortion. (Incidentally, abortion–breast cancer and abortion–mental health are mentioned just a few subsections down from that section). Do you think we should add a bit more? NW (Talk) 05:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed that they had been addressed. I would like to see that specific point made, that illegal abortion is more dangerous (covered) and legal abortion in early pregnancy is safer. That's not generally made explicit, nor is the next point, that late abortions are more dangerous than childbirth, so doctors don't do them without a damn good reason. And consequently, people who try to delay or block abortions are endangering women, some of whom will die. To me, it's part of a complete discussion. Maybe this would be a good place for a graph.
      • It would certainly be interesting to have two side-by-side graphs (or one overlapping graph) showing the risk of death of both week-by-week. If you know where I could find such data, I would be happy to make such a graph. NW (Talk) 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag was added somewhat overzealously. Removed. Archaios (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! --Monado (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of constructed languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to English, Kif, Kyo and Hani

Fictional language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Native Tongue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aug2006-new-bridge-Hwy406-at-20-looking-south.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving / expanding the article on Rosemary Edghill. Good work. DS (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unsafe abortion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transfusion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love your edits to abortion! Good job. Triacylglyceride (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks!

Hello, Monado. You have new messages at Yworo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to From Fresh Water may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some nice person fixed it within 15 minutes! Monado (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Traverse board, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Bourne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Euhelopus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capitulum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. After I found your edit to Sexual reproduction, I checked out your contribs and found you'd removed a dead ref ... which is one of my pet peeves here. So I went to recover it – I eventually found it by doing a Google search for the title, after having no luck at the Wayback Machine. I was trying to juggle two things at once while doing this work, hence the rushed nature of the reverts. Seems to have been all sorted now. Graham87 06:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ralph Buchsbaum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chimera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Durupınar site, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fossiliferous limestone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dwarf Cassowary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• fixed with an alternative link to Kalam language (also called Karam).

Dear Monado; Thank you very much for your helpful contributions in simplifying the prose in the Hurdy gurdy article, on 19 November 2013. Your assistance is very much appreciated. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peckoltia multispinis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• catfish]]. It has the [[L-number]] L049. It is possibly a junior synonym for ''Peckoltia vittata'' (Steindachner, 1881.<ref name=fishbase>{{cite web |url = http://fishbase.sinica.edu.tw/Summary/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think people are resolving it fine without me. Monado (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dies the Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bows. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monado. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monado. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monado. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]