Jayabalan.joseph (talk | contribs) |
Jayabalan.joseph (talk | contribs) →Just my opinion: new section |
||
Line 241: | Line 241: | ||
{{unblock|reason= I stand for a Good cause that falls within the wiki limitations and I work hard to get it done in-spite of recurrent waves of misunderstandings [[User:Jayabalan.joseph|Jayabalan.joseph]] ([[User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#top|talk]]) 08:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock|reason= I stand for a Good cause that falls within the wiki limitations and I work hard to get it done in-spite of recurrent waves of misunderstandings [[User:Jayabalan.joseph|Jayabalan.joseph]] ([[User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#top|talk]]) 08:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)}} |
||
== Just my opinion == |
|||
I appealed for an UNBLOCK and have not received any response and in the mean time I wish to voice my opinion: |
|||
>>NAC:Further discussion here is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I found that Senior Editor Robert McClenon has 'NAC' the discussion that was ongoing in the Tea house... Titled: (Seeking expert help: I am concern that my draft could be rejected out as belonging to "Fringe theories") |
|||
I don't understand why he tries to prevent other people from discussing the topic further, inspite of me blocked for 72 hrs... |
|||
Some thing that I understand is that inspite of his age, experience and powers that he holds he does seem Not to do the right thing... More like those senior SS commanders did during WWII... (sorry again) |
|||
It is my opinion that use of words like Online 'Patrolling' should me morphed in to terms such as 'Shepherding' or so... These kind of words seem to provoke an attitude of authority in the minds of your editors (eg, Orange Mike and few others). As they exhibit cheap authority towards new users like me. I find Patrolling, Policing and Dictating all very common in this community. Soo sad to know how corrupt things are at the back of a website that I have been frequently sourcing for information for quiet a long time... |
|||
[[User:Jayabalan.joseph|Jayabalan.joseph]] ([[User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#top|talk]]) 10:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:13, 17 April 2017
i don't care about anything else anymore , they re more smart and more experience than me, they re powerfull, and not good for me, i just need help to teach me how to behave to save and more money only180.245.83.217 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 26)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Jayabalan.joseph/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hello! Jayabalan.joseph,
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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
|
AfC notification: Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis has a new comment
Request for Reviews....
Hello all,
I have made a wiki draft on 'Species Branding': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis ...This wiki could help find solution to the long running "Species Problem" of Biology... I will be happy to have Experts in the field Review my Draft...
Thank you, Joseph J PhD. Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Jayabalan.joseph, you are a very new editor at Wikipedia, and I noticed that the draft article you've been working on has not yet met the standards at Articles for Creation. Today, you opened a Good Article review for Hybrid (biology). Given that the Good Article process is for articles that meet specific criteria that are much more rigorous than those for draft articles, I don't see how you could yet have the understanding and experience to tackle a Good Article review. In addition, the review page you created contains all sorts of odd links that do not belong.
My suggestion is that until you have gained a great deal more experience at Wikipedia, especially with regard to the standards for articles, that you not attempt any further GA reviews; I would recommend at least a few months and a thousand edits as a minimum, but even better, that one of your own articles be reviewed at GAN once you've revised it to meet the GA criteria.
I will be arranging to have the GA review that you opened deleted, given its issues and your inexperience. I think this is the best thing to do for everyone involved, both yourself and the article's nominator. Thank you for your understanding. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, BlueMoonset. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
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 ( or ) 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.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Further to what the bot says, if you're trying to add something to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology, please (please) don't add multiple sections to all manner of talk pages, it really isn't at all appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
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 ( or ) 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.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Editors...
I am very thankful to everyone who have responded to my request and have contributed valuble edits to the draft.
Best regards, Joseph. 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis has a new comment
AfC notification: Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis has a new comment
Thank you Robert McClenon
Many thanks Robert McClenon for your valuble comments and suggestions. I had made changes to the Summary just as you had suggested.
>> Focus both on what other biologists, not the originator of the theory, have commented on the plausibility of the theory, and on what other biologists have said about the impact of the theory, if true.
So far I have heared No negative comments or opposition to the hypothesis from others. I would be very happy to hear from other biologist about their views and comments on the hypothesis.
It's my feeling that since this hypothesis deals with a bit complex soultion as against an easy solution; other scientists may not so openly voice comments. Surprisingly I have received just few feed backs, as against the thousands of copies of my books that were downloaded. I also see (on amazon kdp) that many readers finish reading my books till the end. But it could be that the problem (species problem) and its solution (Species Branding hypothesis); are too complex (cognitively demanding) for most readers to arrive with a their personal opinions.
I hope I would recieve more feed backs if the wiki-draft gets published. Thank you again, Joseph
PS: The articles below could give you some sense of the cognitive Complexity of the Species Problem: http://cogprints.org/9956/1/Bartlett_The%20Species%20Problem%20and%20Its%20Logic.pdf http://www.reed.edu/biology/professors/srenn/pages/teaching/2007_syllabus/2007_readings/a4_Hey_2001.pdf
Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis
Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Species Branding Hypothesis (April 16)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
April 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis, you may be blocked from editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The Teahouse
Hello Jayabalan.joseph,
Your Teahouse question has been answered at great length and in great detail by several highly experienced editors, who all agree that your hypothesis is not now notable as Wikipedia defines notability and is therefore not eligible for a Wikipedia article at this time. Continuing to argue about the matter after this has been explained to you repeatedly is approaching the realm of disruptive editing. Please stop now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am reinforcing what Cullen328. Your question has been asked and answered. Failure to drop the stick will result in a block. --NeilN talk to me 02:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case it would n't be a failure from my side, but on Your side to defend your views... (& Obviously a clear failure to your community as a whole)
Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. NeilN talk to me 02:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
>>I am reinforcing what Cullen328. Your question has been asked and answered. Failure to drop the stick will result in a block. --NeilN talk to me 02:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
>>In that case it would n't be a failure from my side, but on Your side to defend your views... (& Obviously a clear failure to your community as a whole)
You clearly Failed yourself and your community...
Happy Easter NeilN...!
You're confusing the publisher (you) with the seller (Amazon). Amazon would sell my weekly grocery lists if I published them. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#
>>You're confusing the publisher (you) with the seller (Amazon). Amazon would sell my weekly grocery lists if I published them. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
"Amazon Books" does not publish your Grocery list NeilN (may be you could try if you wish to)...
You have Successfully publicized your ignorance (foolishness) in the Teahouse...!
- Please cease your unwarranted personal attacks on NeilN and other editors. Continuing that disruptive behavior will lead to a longer block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
IF I don't have the freedom to write in MY talk page (not on NeliN's) then 'freedom of speech' is questionable in your community as a whole... That reminds me of Nazi Germany... Sorry to say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayabalan.joseph (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOFREESPEECHHERE. --NeilN talk to me 03:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Oo Great help arrives here... When I got blocked...!
Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
"But you have no "right" to express yourself at will in someone else's home"... Source: WP:NOFREESPEECHHERE
And given that I don't write in any one's Talk pages since the blockade... why would someone else be willing to come forward to communicate in mine... They seem to know they are wrong and are trying to justify their act...?
Great community...! Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Jayabalan. I saw your posts at the Teahouse and was going to post some advice here, but it seems you have been blocked. Just for reference, we do not own our use pages or user talk pages as explained in WP:UP#OWN. You can remove comments from your user talk page if you like as long as doing so is in accordance with WP:BLANKING.
- For what its worth, the community tends to allow us a little leeway when it comes to the content we post on user pages, but it will intervene and take action when it feels they are being used inappropriately. While it's unfortunate that you've gotten blocked, continuing to post as you are doing is only going to lead an administrator to either (1) extend your block, (2) revoke your user talk page priviledges (it's indeed a priviledge not a right) or (3) do both (1) and (2). You probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Appealing a block, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Help:I have been blocked to familiarize yourself with what happens when an editor is blocked. Your primary use of your user talk page at the moment should be limited to figuring out what you need to do to get your account unblocked; any thing else is not going to help things at all.
- I am posting this in good faith and mean you no ill will. Many editors get blocked when they first start out editing because they are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's very policies and guidelines. Those that decide to be here to help build the encyclopedia often move on to become very positive contributors to the project; those who don't often find themselves on the outside looking in unable to return to any form of editing in good standing. I hope you decide to be one of the former and not the latter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Echoing what Marchjuly said, we welcome editors who create and improve articles according to our policies and guidelines. But if all you're here for is to publish and promote your own original research then Wikipedia is not a good fit for you. I will happily unblock if you indicate you understand this and indicate where else you'd like to contribute. --NeilN talk to me 04:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I hope that with good will you people are here Communicating with me... That's great from your part... I wish to know from you both what measures (/corrections) I could do in order to get this draft published.
BTW: This is not Original content, and has been published elsewhere in the first place...
Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI: peer reviewing
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic "peer reviewing", of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17547/
scholarly monographs:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
Some theses are later published in the form of "scholarly monographs" or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/RETHINKING-Evolution-J-Joseph-Ph-D-ebook/dp/B01FW9R0M4
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKGEYHO
Awaiting your reply...
PS: If you don't reply then it would lead me to assume that, you both came here with intentions of Intimidating me by explaining the "priviledges" that you so hold...?
Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- You can assume what you like, but my post was made in good faith. Moreover, all Wikipedians are volunteers, which means they are not required to respond to anything on demand or even at all if they choose not to. All I can say about your draft is that is your responsibility to show that it is not original research by establishing that the subject matter has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. You can ask for other opinons at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology about your draft if you like. Be advised though that primary sources in and of themselves are generally considered insufficient for establishing Wikipedia notability and that secondary sources are need for such a thing. So, if you can show that such published secondary sourcing exists, then your draft has a good chance of being accepted. The burden of doing such at thing, however, falls primarily upon you.
- At the same time. if you disagree with Wikipedia's definition of "original reserach" or feel it needs some updating to bring it more in tune with your way of thinking, then the place to discuss that would be at Wikipedia talk:No original research or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Decisions, especially about core policies and guidelines, are going to require input from the community at large and will not take place overnight. These decisions are made by consensus and comments may be requested per Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
- You are, however, going to be unable to do any of the above as long as your account remains blocked, so I strongly suggest that you focus on finding out what you need to do to get unblocked and avoid trying to discuss anything else. This is the best advice I can give you at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Comeon NeilN, Marchjuly...
To Err is very Human... Just imagine 15-20 years down the line and the admin of wiki is going to be a Computer (AI/Robo)... If you get blocked-up like me... Would you expect the AI to behave so humane to you...? I don’t think so... By now we, the admins are all humans with a heart and a mind... There are times in life, when you could not make decisions by asking to your brain... At those times try listening to what your Heart says...
It is good Being human...?
Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am not an admnistrator so I do not have the ability to block or unblock other editors. I saw your post(s) at the Teahouse, and it seemed you were having problems understanding what Wikipedia is not, so I thought I'd try to help. After looking at your talk page, I noticed you had been blocked which means that you would not be able to respond to anything further posted at the Teahouse; so, I posted my conmment here instead. If you want to be unblocked, then read the links I provided above and follow the advice given in them. Administrators typically only block an editor to prevent further disruption of the encyclopedia, and not to punish anyone. Moreover, they are usually more than happy to give a blocked editor a second chance when the editor shows that they understand the mistake which was made and agrees not to repeat it. NeilN is an administrator and he clearly stated he will unblock you if you just explain how you intend to contribute to building the the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so unless you want to wait 15 to 20 years to be unblocked, I suggest you focus more on the present than what might come to be. Whatever comments you have from here on are probably going to be best answered by an administrator, so I'll leave any further replies up to one of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I would wait for 15 years to be unblocked... But that does not mean people can expect one to kiss their feet to get things done in wiki...? Any way thanks for easing things up...
Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Marchjuly Looks like NeilN has gone to bed... Any way I would like to know; If every one is a volunteer in wiki and seemingly having difference in opinion in decision making... Who actually decides on accepting an article...? And how would I put forward my appeal against the decision made by an editor...
For example: In my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis Editor Exemplo347 believes that my draft should be declined citing policy "reliable sources" while I actually find evidence in this policy supporting my draft to have "reliable sources"... I write to Exemplo347 and he says that he just reviewed... All those weeks I waited has been wasted by an editor who seems to take no responsibility for his deed... (Atleast Exemplo347 was not very authoritative)... Who should I appeal to put forward my point seeking draft acceptance...?
Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Jayabalan.joseph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I stand for a Good cause that falls within the wiki limitations and I work hard to get it done in-spite of recurrent waves of misunderstandings [[User:Jayabalan.joseph|Jayabalan.joseph]] ([[User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#top|talk]]) 08:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I stand for a Good cause that falls within the wiki limitations and I work hard to get it done in-spite of recurrent waves of misunderstandings [[User:Jayabalan.joseph|Jayabalan.joseph]] ([[User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#top|talk]]) 08:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I stand for a Good cause that falls within the wiki limitations and I work hard to get it done in-spite of recurrent waves of misunderstandings [[User:Jayabalan.joseph|Jayabalan.joseph]] ([[User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#top|talk]]) 08:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Just my opinion
I appealed for an UNBLOCK and have not received any response and in the mean time I wish to voice my opinion:
>>NAC:Further discussion here is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I found that Senior Editor Robert McClenon has 'NAC' the discussion that was ongoing in the Tea house... Titled: (Seeking expert help: I am concern that my draft could be rejected out as belonging to "Fringe theories")
I don't understand why he tries to prevent other people from discussing the topic further, inspite of me blocked for 72 hrs...
Some thing that I understand is that inspite of his age, experience and powers that he holds he does seem Not to do the right thing... More like those senior SS commanders did during WWII... (sorry again)
It is my opinion that use of words like Online 'Patrolling' should me morphed in to terms such as 'Shepherding' or so... These kind of words seem to provoke an attitude of authority in the minds of your editors (eg, Orange Mike and few others). As they exhibit cheap authority towards new users like me. I find Patrolling, Policing and Dictating all very common in this community. Soo sad to know how corrupt things are at the back of a website that I have been frequently sourcing for information for quiet a long time...
Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)