The article (Campbell-Falck, D.; Thomas, T.; Falck, T. M.; Tutuo, N.; Clem, K. (2000). "The intravenous use of coconut water". The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 18 (1): 108–111. ISSN0735-6757. PMID10674546.) from which the content was extracted is freely available for access in the internet, so in a sense it is not copy and pasting, the only thing is that, proper paraphrasing was not used, but the points which were relevant to the article (Saline (medicine)) was extracted from it (mainly pertaining to use of coconut water during world war - II). Another thing is that people working in a academic environment can not be tagged with copy and pasting (unless and otherwise required), because they deliver lectures on these topics (person's capability also counts), so very thing gets nullified. One more thing conflict of interest also counts.
The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Please add references that show that this subject has been written about in depth in multiple independent, reliable publications. At the moment the references do not indicate the depth of coverage.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mandl's Paint and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mandl's Paint, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
Hello! Sachinthonakkara,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to Sensorium does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is marked as answered (Changed these options in the preference accordingly.). If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pharmacology of Lead and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pharmacology of Lead, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment the reviewer left was:
References actually need to mention the subject
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mandl's Paint and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mandl's Paint, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
Wilson, N. (2004). Salt Tax Could Reduce Population's Salt Intake. BMJ:British Medical Journal,329(7471), 918-918. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25469261
The following discussion is marked as answered (historical policies from time immemorial concerning iodine and human health serves has a good reference). If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 1997kB was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Thonakkara and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Thonakkara, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
HiSachinthonakkara, an article you recently created, Nathan Russell Harrington, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). Basically, all we have to go on at the moment to demonstrate notability is the one obituary in Science - which is not enough to clear the hurdle. Please find more sources that discuss him and his legacy in detail; if those don't exist, he may not be eligible for an article on Wikiepdia.
When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. People will then vet it for suitability and let you know how things stand re demonstrated notability. Moving it into mainspace yourself risks it being handled rather more straightforwardly (i.e. someone might just nominate it for deletion outright). Cheers Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saliva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gleek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello Sachinthonakkara, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Draft:Stent thrombosis (Pharmacology) have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Ifyou own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Invery rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of stent thrombosis posted by me from the article "Editorial". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 26 (2): 436–437. 2010. doi:10.1016/0735-1097(95)00239-z. ISSN0735-1097. was as defined by academic research consortium, the same definition as different interpretations in different articles, for example: "Subject Index". JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 9 (4): S72. 2014. doi:10.1016/s1936-8798(15)02245-1. ISSN1936-8798. so sometimes it is difficult interpret definitions given in different articles.
Sachinthonakkara
The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.
Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMIDorISBN.
While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing can not always be authenticated even by secondary sources because knowledge and human mind's thinking ability keeps changing now and then similar to government policies, where boss is always the top dog. Example: Sample, Ian (2018-08-22). "Coconut oil is 'pure poison', says Harvard professor". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-10-27. Though this statement can be true to some extend but needs repeated experimentation even by the scientists who are proficient in this filled. Some of my contents were removed for posting this message on referencing, I would not be able to decode clinical trial articles; my level of referencing is that of a amateur person in the same field.
The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do. Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
Citation details are important:
Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.
Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.
The user page for this talk page was deleted after deletion tag was placed on the userpage and again created by User:Sachinthonakkara with a template message box keeping in mind wikipedia guidelines. This user never created that user page, for using wikipedia as web host, but to give a mental kick when others observe that page, that is what knowledge and education is all about.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Melcous (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won't make any statements against this, was expecting to be removed from editing wikipedia. My job is like that even i don't know whether my presence is required or not in the teaching faculty; I am fit to do only a sweepers job, which does not include mental exertion. Thanks of putting this tag on my user page and talk page. Was expecting some kind of carrier advancement out of editing wikipedia that did not happen (well and good), but things turned worse. Think i should quit my job.
My user page is for mocking myself and those people who are associated with me. I am paid by the organisation that i work for and not by wikimedia foundation, if i don't get my pay will quit my job and also stop editing wikipedia, till then i will be here. My edits on wikimedia sites are conflict of interest edits, which has only to do with my profession and carrier advancement in the same or in academic administration or in government related organisation. Usually people like me are given low end jobs where there is no prospect of advancement in the same field. Wikipedia is only a media to express myself. This is to remind melcous that i have reverted your deletion request on this user page.
Think i going to be removed from my position and job. Thanks every one for, reminding me about my status in the society.
Nothing happened because today is sunday and a holiday, tomorrow i will get to know whether my job stays or given a pink slip. My fingers are allows crossed.
My statements are based on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Electoral Commission and its talk page for which i nominated myself based on the message that i got on my watchlist, for my lack of programming skills the statements were neglected. Regarding referencing need not remind what that is. I created a account on wikipedia, as part of academic administration. I am not here to chat with anyone, everyone has their own business to mind, which is evident how my user page was deleted.
Two things: 1)You need to sign talk page messages, even on your own talk page. Besides adding your signature, it also adds a timestamp. 2)Do not indent at the beginning of a line. If you want an indent (and see WP:TPG for when that's appropriate), add a colon (:) at the beginning of the line, one for each space you wish to indent. I'll leave you a link to a place where you can ask questions about the technical aspects of editing. John from Idegon (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sachinthonakkara, I have struck my comments above and have restored your comments on the page. I acknowledge that you saw the watchlist message and thought we wanted you to oversee our ARBCOM election; we don't. That message was confusing to you. Be advised that asking other new editors to post grievances is not what that page is for. Chris Troutman (talk)00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thank both the editors for correcting the loopholes in my commenting and editing style, will follow your advice in the future. Do understand that indenting is; for showing continuity in the discussion, not aware what will show up when a script is run (or any action is performed) since i am not a administrator. Sachinthonakkara 00:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Sachinthonakkara,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! John from Idegon (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is marked as answered (Can't afford to have a chat). If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Username Needed was:
Problems still remain, please add links to articles that actually mention the subject. The refs don't even seem to be about the same topic in some cases.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mandl's Paint and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mandl's Paint, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
Hello, Sachinthonakkara. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Thonakkara".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
This is not ready yet. It has to be written as an encyclopedia article, not a series of quotations. See WP:FIRST, and bios of other scientists.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reid Hunt and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Reid Hunt, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
My intention was not to disrupt the RFA process, but to get something out of it, the votes are as per the message received in the watchlist and also contributes to my edit count. Sachinthonakkara (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made your opinion known in good faith; however, the wording of your vote indicates that you've probably not really researched this candidate. Here is a link that you might find informative. It shows that Johnuniq has:
Made about 63,000 edits across the Wikimedia projects, of which about 61,000 are on English Wikipedia
Created over 3000 new pages
Completed about 30,000 edits to article space
And from the nomination, we learn that he created a template ({{convert}}) that is used in tens of thousands of articles - that may well include at least one article on your watchlist. That you have not crossed editing paths with any particular user, even a highly prolific user, is not surprising: Wikipedia has over 5 million articles and there's a very good chance that most editors will not edit on the same articles. This is particularly true if either or both editors focus mainly on specific topic areas. You seem to have an interest in articles relating to medicine; Johnuniq spends more time editing on technical/computer-related areas. There are also about 66,000 active editors on English Wikipedia every month, and it's unlikely that even the most active editor will have interacted even indirectly with more than 1-2% of them.
I urge you to reconsider whether your personal metric for supporting an editor at RfA (As per my watchlist notice; never encountered this person) is indicative of whether a person is qualified to be an administrator. Risker (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support the above comment. When we don't know an RfA nominee, if we can't take the time to investigate if they are fit, it's usually best not to vote, unless there's an immediately obvious reason like lack of experience. —PaleoNeonate – 06:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since anyone can create an account and get involved the aspects that happen in wikipedia, i would just follow my watchlist notification which is for a select users. I have seen many account being blocked with a tag, unless i get such response i will be here. Anyhow it is a medium of communication for me. I never see the worthiness of a candidate for being an admin or bureaucrate. Sachinthonakkara (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sachinthonakkara, can I ask why you "oppose" the candidate becoming an admin based on your lack of knowledge of the candidate? Surely, the default position should be "neutral" (or even support, under the basic premise of WP:AGF) WormTT(talk) 08:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who will pay my salary? I am running out of money. Places like this is the only alternative, so the conclusion is that i don't have adminship at the place of my work. I don't like other getting the role, it is very simple. If i run out of money who will pay me. Just for editting wikipedia i bought a refurbished laptop, that money should be worth something. Well unless somekind of aura is generated with another editor i wouldn't support that person. example: galobtter this guy is a really angry person, thats why that user is worth my money never mind if it is a man women or transgender.
Then ignore their RfA. We'd had editors disrupting RfA before for somewhat similar reasons. This isn't acceptable and if you continue you are likely to be blocked. Taking out problems at work here is not going to get you far, and frankly what you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense. Doug Wellertalk10:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung, Risker, Worm That Turned, and Doug Weller:, y'all are spending a lot of words here. I read the RfA comment, "As per my watchlist notice; never encountered this person", which makes no sense; the weird comment about User:Galobtter is just weird and at the very least uncollegial; what's a refurbished laptop doing in here?; most of the user's comments are grammatically deficient and many are incomprehensible; I think one of you should flip a coin--heads, indef per WP:CIR, as suggested by User:Serial Number 54129, tails, indef per WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indeffing. Was wondering when I read the RfA comment why the Sachin had not been indeffed yet (but didn't have the time to look into doing a block). Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, Sachinthonakkara, it seems you may be under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia editors and administrators get paid for their work on the encyclopedia. This is not true and, in fact, undisclosed paid editing is banned on Wikipedia. There are very few situations in which a Wikipedia editor can be paid for their work here. If you are being paid to edit, you should read the conflict of interest rules to ensure you are not violating them. You ask "Who will pay my salary?" - the answer is nobody at Wikipedia. Administrator permissions don't result in your getting paid. If someone is paying you to edit Wikipedia, nothing you do at RfA is going to help you stay here. Risker (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sachin, is Hindi your first language, by any chance? Going by this, your discussion earlier on this very page, your inability for 10 months to prove to people that Draft:Mandl's Paint even exists, and your interactions at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mandl's Paint.xcf, English seems not to be your first language, and you appear not to understand one of the basic goals of the Wikipedia project, because you do not understand what copyright is. What you think you know about what we are doing here, what is expected of you, and how you can contribute, is very wrong. And you are not communicating well in English.
(For the lurkers: the draft article's subject is also called Mandl's pigment, Mandl's solution, or Compound paint of iodine, and is fairly easy to look up once one knows this. It's actually in the first textbook cited in the draft, under the name Mandel's paint on page 899, rather than page 889 as in the citation given. But I believe that to be an Indian English misnomer. Lurkers, you might like to fix that draft up.)
The instruction happens in english from the childhood and no question arises what my first language is, i am proficient in two other languages. Concerning the draft which did not pass, i can put it up the same way as pharmacology of lead but avoiding so. Sachinthonakkara (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, it most definitely did, and does, arise. ☺
There's a lot that you need to learn, especially what copyright is, and that our whole reason for existence is because of it. But perhaps the most important things to learn even before that, are, in addition to what Risker said, that you are not employed by Wikipedia; and so you should not be submitting copies of your documents, as you would (for example) to an employer. They are not supposed to be here.
To conclude at university level of education the copyright or any legal issue is nullified through classroom lectures, where subject knowledge considered. Sachinthonakkara (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopaedia writing project, not a classroom lecture, not that that is actually true for classroom lectures in general either. If you think that you are operating here free of rules about respecting copyright, then you are sorely mistaken. That is most definitely not the case. We are here to write a free content encyclopaedia, without incorporating non-free encumbered stuff. This is a very important thing to remember. You can lose your editing privileges, by having them revoked by me or another administrator, very rapidly and possibly for good if you copy non-free stuff into Wikipedia, and do not submit original free-content stuff. Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Journals don't accept things that are permisible on wikipedia and the scrutiny is not that stringent as seen in academic journals. If you're thinking about blocking me, it can be considered after closing the RFA whether my oppose vote is given any value. Anyway Johnuniq can self nominate at any future time to clear the RFA, rather than being nominated by others. 23:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
What are you trying to say here? If you think self-nominations are better than being nominated then you are surely ignorant to the proceedings at RfA. Anarchyte (talk | work)11:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For in depth explanation let me drag the government, so in this type of administration the native people of a locality are more successful than others in reaching the top slot, where nomination is not required only local support is required similar to an election. Ok another way is diplomacy for that you need some skills, thats others nominating someone else. I don't know whether aristocracy comes into play or not. With concern to wikipedia i can't say anything, since people can directly communicate with the alibi and get the work done. This discusion was postponed till the closure of the RFA, thats where it all begin. Its like russians rigging american elections. 13:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Sachinthonakkara, if I could just level with you here.. your participation in this project is appreciated, but your idiosyncratic votes at RFA are not. Please, reconsider participating if you don't know know anything about a candidate. Cheers, –MJL‐Talk‐☖22:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
I'm sorry to have to do this, but after a detailed look through your contributions, I have little option. You have repeatedly violated copyright, despite a number of warnings on the subject. You have demonstrated an inability to understand reviewers comments on your drafts at AfC, including, in one case, moving a draft to mainspace after it had been declined, and despite it having serious problems. And most seriously, you have made a serious of odd comments on discussions in the project-space, and then made even more bizarre comments in response to attempts by other users to understand your actions. I don't want to make any assumptions about your linguistic background, but even on this page, you are not demonstrating a level of English competence necessary for the things you have chosen to participate in. Your block is indefinite, but not necessarily infinite; you need to convince me, or another administrator, that you have understood why your conduct has been disruptive, and why it will not be in the future. Vanamonde (Talk)02:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
testing the functioning wikipedia, and the behavioural pattern of users.
Sometimes differentiating reel and real life is difficult but this is a medium through which i work, makes no difference without this channel. Had a examination session in the early part of today from what happen in the examination hall everything is understandable.
vanamonde93 I was typing asking for the payment for editing wikipedia especially the article lead, another user interferred. i.e., john from idegon.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mandl's Paint, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Pharmacology of lead, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Reid Hunt, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Hello, Sachinthonakkara. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mandl's Paint, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello. Thank you for your contributionstoWikipedia.
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sachinthonakkara, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Draft:Stent thrombosis (Pharmacology) have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
located above the edit window.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
