User talk:Accassidy

Lycaenidae

Terrific Sulawesi Lycaenidae images. A pleasure to see.Thought at first they were not categorised but I see they are neatly filed but by someone else See previous You have recently uploaded some terrific images which I am sure will feature on many WP pages,some already written but you haven't categorised them (Category:Lycaenidae) would do fine rendering them impossible to find.Or perhaps I am telling you what you know already? and you have a different plan.If so apologies.Best wishes from the Emerald Isle Robert akaNotafly (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A long deserved Lepidoptera barnstar

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For User:Accassidy who has contributed greatly to Wikiproject Lepidoptera with his beautiful photographs. Come back soon, we need you! AshLin (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusionism

"If your intention is to delete relevant, useful, verified information, then you are not an Exclusionist but a Deletionist."

No, deletionism is about deleting entire articles; exclusionism is about removing some text from intact articles.

"I am not an unknown URL, or a "fanboy" (surprised that you would use such an ugly term in view of your desire for good English)"

When did I ever use the term "fanboy"? Are you confusing me with someone else?

"For anyone wanting to use this Wiki to actually find out about this kind of vehicle in real-life usage, actual verified data is much more useful than manufacturer's claims or the results of "record breaking" trials."

Even if you have a photo to back up your claim, we have to use reliable sources on Wikipedia. The information must be published in some book, magazine, official news site, or guide before it can be listed here. --Vossanova ^o< 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Congruence with WikiSpecies

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#Congruence_with_WikiSpecies Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jameela

I moved your article, just fyi. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thaumania

Hello there Accassidy. I noticed your new article Thaumania, but was wondering if the name is correct. I couldn't find any info online. If it is correct (maybe a new genus?) could you add an authority and species? Thanks. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Thaumaina: http://repository.osakafu-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10466/3326. I added a species to the taxobox. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for making these articles! ErikHaugen (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP Lepidoptera in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Lepidoptera for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rachana jalindra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horsfield (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) 12:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Rachana jalindra, Accassidy!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed as part of page curation. Previously tagged as stub. Factual article on species of butterfly.Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:ChrysozephyrusbirupaAC1.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies user box

I just wanted to remind you that you can promote Wikispecies by using the WS admin user box. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Accassidy. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleta caleta and Caleta decidia

It seems there is an overlap between these pages. The IUCN page seems outdated, considering both as a single species. I tried to improve Caleta decidia. But I have no knowledge about Caleta caleta. Could you look it, please. J e e 05:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Accassidy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Accassidy. 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]

Proposed deletion of File:Chrysozephryus birupa AC1.jpg

The file File:Chrysozephryus birupa AC1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Order of the British Empire, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. No, MBE does not redirect there. David Biddulph (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Atlantic slave trade. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Pakistani Britons. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. House Blaster^talk 22:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Rishi Sunak, you may be blocked from editing. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ganesha811. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rishi Sunak have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Thibaut (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Philosophy, politics and economics, you may be blocked from editing. Thibaut (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification for awareness of discretionary sanctions area

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Schazjmd (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits

In the past year, you have repeatedly made unsourced edits that violate the neutral point of view policy: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] A few of those diffs are extremely distasteful.

You need to stop making inappropriate edits. You also need to stop adding yourself to various pages. Schazjmd (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your qualification and authority for determining an informative edit "inappropriate" is what? ACCassidy (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fact that 5 different people have independently warned you on this talk page in the past year would give you a clue that you are in the wrong here. The community as a whole is qualified to decide what counts as inappropriate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, it would appear that you do wish this website not to be educational but indoctrinational. ACCassidy (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this edit [11], I have to agree with Schazjmd and Ganesha811. We have some rules on WP. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Because it's clear you're not here to build an encyclopaedia, but instead push your own personal racial opinions and politics, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here :I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood my contributions. So perhaps I should explain something about taxonomy: the scientific naming of all species on planet Earth. In order to associate and to dis-associate various animals and plants living on the Earth the science of taxonomy was created a long time ago. Darwin was an early promoter of such ideas. :If you look at any textbook, scientific publication, concerning the differentiation of diversely located members of a single species, you will discover the concept of a "subspecies", a "form", a "variation" and so on. Look on many pages concerning insects or birds and you will find many such distinctions. My previous understanding, from extensive work on Lepidoptera in [User contributions for ACCassidy - Wikispecies], is that these valid scientific divisions are acceptable on a website such as this where taxonomy is understood. In most species on the planet there are a number of "subspecies" based on genetic and apparent differences. :The scientific question is "why should such classification be denied from one animal species", while it is considered valid for all of the others?

Decline reason:

It's been a while since I saw someone with such obvious deeply inappropriate edits try to claim there was nothing wrong with them. I initially wondered if your account had been compromised. Looks unlikely, given the garbage spewed for months. Yamla (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood my contributions. So perhaps I should explain something about taxonomy: the scientific naming of all species on planet Earth. In order to associate and to dis-associate various animals and plants living on the Earth the science of taxonomy was created a long time ago. Darwin was an early promoter of such ideas.

If you look at any textbook, scientific publication, concerning the differentiation of diversely located members of a single species, you will discover the concept of a "subspecies", a "form", a "variation" and so on. Look on many pages concerning insects or birds and you will find many such distinctions. My previous understanding, from extensive work on Lepidoptera in [User contributions for ACCassidy - Wikispecies], is that these valid scientific divisions are acceptable on a website such as this where taxonomy is understood. In most species on the planet there are a number of "subspecies" based on genetic and apparent differences.

The scientific question is "why should such classification be denied from one animal species (Homo sapiens)", while it is considered valid for all of the others? ACCassidy (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no, your edits have not been misunderstood. Canterbury Tail talk 17:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are either telling a lie, or you are claiming to be able to determine the intentions in my work without ever having met nor talked to me. So, please explain further your understanding of the taxonomic validity of a "subspecies" and explain why you think Homo sapiens is not subject to the same nomenclature as every other species we know of. You accuse me of being "racist" when you, yourself, are being "speciesist" because our species must be treated differently from every other. This self-promoting position is a greater crime, surely!! ACCassidy (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you start a sentence "Yeah no", you appear to be a bit confused, so I shall explain further. I have been a published entomologist for several decades and have authored descriptions of several new species and sub-species in the context of the Lepidoptera. These have been published in peer-reviewed journals and have established new taxa that are now part of the accepted taxonomy. Are you going to continue to bury your head in the sand, or actually have the decency to explain your actions? ACCassidy (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, keep digging, keep making it easier for everyone to see why you got blocked. Also, not all other species are divided up into subspecies, including in cases where there might seem to be significant differences in appearance. What about dog breeds? Vastly different appearances (far greater than any variation in human appearance), yet they aren't all different subspecies. Your knowledge of Lepidoptera might be good, but attempting to extrapolate from arthropods to mammals is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also "yeah no", is a colloquialism for "No". Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you would be happy to have different "breeds" of humans, like the dogs? For clarity, it might be better if your refrained from colloquialisms. ACCassidy (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that you are posing "anonymously" on your user page, giving no information on your qualifications for this post, nor anything else about you as an individual. Perhaps you are a "bot" of some sort... ACCassidy (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and you are being discriminatory against arthropods, by making them less important than mammals. ACCassidy (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that differences in appearance do not make a subspecies.

I was actually saying that your experience with Lepidoptera does not qualify you to dictate to everyone how mammal taxonomy should work, as your view is against the prevailing scientific consensus.

I don't need qualifications.

Maybe I am some sort of bot. I don't remember being born, so perhaps you have a point. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 15:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and im not the same user as Canterbury Tail either. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 15:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Have a look at ''Canis adustus'' - Wikispecies (wikimedia.org), and you will see a dog species with many subspecies, including one named "kaffensis"**

I have a lot of knowledge and research capability in the Lepidoptera, as you might realise, and if I can make no further progress with those, the end loser will be Wikispecies. ACCassidy (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about all canines, I was talking about the domestic dog, Canis familiaris, you are intelligent enough to have known that, surely.

I had some hope that you might drop your bigoted views amd your promotion of scientific racism, but no, that apparently won't be happening. Hence, I have no intention of engaging here any further. Goodbye. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 23:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, having had your errors pointed out, you are running away. What a good example to set to other narrow-minded bigots. My views are not bigoted, but descriptive. Perhaps you could look up the difference. ACCassidy (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not interested in a proper unblock request, and you are making zero acknowledgement of understanding why you were blocked, plus you're now calling other people bigots after the edits you've made, I've removed your access to the talk page. If you wish to make a reasonable unblock request that isn't obvious trolling like the above, you can use the UTRS system. Canterbury Tail talk 18:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, since I can see no evidence of abuse of your sysop status (or indeed any issues with your editing in general) on WS, I don't intend to make any mention there of the issues here and on simplewiki. As I see it, what has happened here and on simplewiki can stay on here and simplewiki, so long as you keep it that way. I trust you will do so. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]