User talk:Moroks

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

December 2019
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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bilby (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Levon Khachigian
Hi, I had a look at the dispute that you are involved in. Here are a few tips to re-write the content that you want to add in an acceptable way.

1/"Six of Khachigian's research articles have so far been retracted and one corrected due to unresolved concerns over missing or manipulated data". Remove "so far", it's suggestive and without evidence that there are more irregularities, you should not say that. You support this with a reference to a database, but that only shows that there are retractions, but very little other information. You could cite the 7 notices, but those are primary sources. Ideal would be if RetractionWatch had written about it, because that would be a reliable source independent of the subject.

2/ "At Pubpeer.com, an important discussion forum for published research, fifteen articles co-authored by Khachigian are discussed due to problematic issues." While PubPeer is a respectable website, it is not a reliable source, because its content is user contributed. In addition, "being discussed" does not (yet) mean that something is really wrong, so this is inadmissible until misconduct has been proven (by a reliable source).

3/ "ABC News in Australia critically discussed the many problematic issues related to Khachigian's research in October 2019." This phrase is tendentious ("many problematic issues"). Better would be to use this article (from an impeccable source, Australian Broadcasting Corporation) to simply support the first phrase.

4/ You should place your text before the sentence starting with "None of the multiple different", because that is where it logically belongs. You could add a short sentence at the end of the paragraph (after "there was no finding of research misconduct"), sourced to the ABC article, that the different proceedings are contested.

Hope this helps! --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

List of serial killers in the United States
This is not the place to vent your frustrations. Please don't do anything like this ever again. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)