User talk:Aostachuk

Welcome!
Hello, Aostachuk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Copy and pasting
One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You must put what you write in your own words. No copy and pasting allowed.
 * You added "Plants have been identified as promising expression systems for production of vaccine antigens."
 * One ref says "Plants have been identified as promising expression systems for commercial production of vaccine antigens."  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Kurt Goldstein
You go on removing and distorting data. You do not explain and discuss. I shall have to report this as vandalism, if you keep on doing this. Friedhelm --79.228.24.190 (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You just wrote on my former user talk page: "Very funny... The changes seem obvious to me: Germany did not exist at 1878, but Prussia. Therefore, Goldstein is Prussian, doesn´t he?" This is not correct. Prussia was part of the German Empire at that time. Germany DID exist. Since 1871 it existed under the name of German Empire (Deutsches Kaiserreich). So Goldstein's nationality is German. (follow the link to German Empire). Friedhelm --79.228.11.207 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Kurt Goldstein
You've been warned for edit warring per the report at WP:AN3. If you make more reverts of this nature you are risking a block under our WP:Edit warring policy. I'm also leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Kurt Goldstein is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE
EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation and edit warring on Crab article
It looks like you been kinda edit warring with on the Crab article. But also, the information you are continually trying to add is a clear copyright violation, and it looks like it was copied almost verbatim from this article titled "What is It Like to be a Crab? A Complex Network Analysis of Eucaridan Evolution"

Here is what you added to the Crab wikipedia page:
 * Eucaridan evolution involved a process starting from a body organization characterized by an elongate and cylindrical cephalothorax, a well-developed, articulated and sclerotized abdomen composed of swimming appendages, and ending in a tail fan formed by flattened uropods and a telson, a condition found in what are commonly known as shrimps. On the other hand, this process would lead, ultimately, to a body organization characterized by a shortened and depressed cephalothorax and a reduced and ventrally folded abdomen, a condition found in what are commonly known as crabs. This ultimate process is typically known as carcinization[43] and it is considered one of the main examples of evolutionary convergence[44]. As carcinization is defined as the process of becoming a crab, it creates consequently the problem of defining what a crab is. Various definitions of what a crab is were given through history, although ultimately they are all reduced to the same principles. Borradaile (1916), who was the first to propose the term carcinization, defined it as "a reduction of the abdomen of a macrurous crustacean, together with a depression and broadening of its cephalothorax, so that the animal assumes the general habit of body of a crab"[45]. More recently, Martin and Abele (1986) defined carcinization as the "reduction and folding of the abdomen beneath the thorax"[46]. Meanwhile, Scholtz (2014) defined a decapod crustacean as a crab when the following criteria were fulfilled: "carapace depressed with lateral margin; carapace with similar width and length; sternum wide; pleon ventrally flexed"[47]. As can be seen, all these definitions point to the same morphological features: they all define a crab based on the fulfillment of certain geometrical and sizeable characteristics. A recent work[48] studied the evolution of the superorder Eucarida (Malacostraca) using complex networks. There, a new definition of a crab was proposed. Crab evolution implied an “enclosure”, but not of the abdomen beneath the thorax. Crab evolution implied the formation of a triadic structure with high closeness centrality, formed by the cephalon, the fused thoracomere 1–4 and the carapace, which represented a highly stable core deeply buried or enclosed in the topological structure of the network. This condition is only reached by the infraorder Brachyura. Under this new definition, the representative of the infraorder Anomura, which is commonly considered as a crab, is not. This network seemed to be characterized by the presence of a quasi-dyadic structure, formed by the cephalon and the carapace, which was not sufficient for generating the topological closure. This clearly differs from the conclusions reached, for example, by Scholtz, for whom some representatives of the infraorder Anomura and Palinura can be considered crabs.

Here is the intro abstract paragraph of that study you copied from:
 * Eucaridan evolution involved a process starting from a body organization characterized by an elongate and cylindrical cephalothorax, a well-developed abdomen composed of swimming appendages, ending in a tail fan formed by flattened uropods and a telson. This process would lead, ultimately, to a body organization characterized by a shortened and depressed cephalothorax, and a reduced and ventrally folded abdomen. This ultimate process is typically known as carcinization, and is commonly defined as the process of becoming a crab. In this work, the evolution of the superorder Eucarida was studied using complex networks. A new definition of crab and carcinization are given based on the results obtained. A crab is a topological structural closure that determines the formation of a triadic central core. The evolution of the crab implied the formation of a triadic structure with high closeness centrality, formed by the cephalon, the fused thoracomere 1-4 and the carapace, which represented a highly stable hierarchical core deeply buried or enclosed in the topological structure of the network, responsible for the generation of a highly integrated and robust topology. Under this new definition, the representative of the infraorder Anomura used in this work, which is commonly considered as a crab, is not. This network seemed to be characterized by the presence of a quasi-dyadic structure, formed by the cephalon and the carapace, which was not sufficient for generating the topological closure.

This is obviously copy and paste work, which is not allowed. And it looks like you have been previously warned for copyright violation. I guess consider this another warning. And stop trying to add this to the article. Carcinisation is already discussed. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Your recent editing history 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aostachuk! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Crab that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Aostachuk. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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:. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 23:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * the creation and use of was very obvious, and wouldn't normally result in a check. I did, however, perform a check given your current situation i/r/t COIN/ANEW, as the creation of accounts tends to be a position bolstering tactic. Do you have any other accounts on Wikipedia? -- TNT (talk • she/they) 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)