User talk:Gmscalia

February 2015[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Relative Atrial Index a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Gmscalia. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article EPLAR, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

Please do not add material to Wikipedia that promotes yourself under the gyuise of adding a source, as you did to EPLAR. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. You should also read WP:SOCK and take note- Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of TheMikol23 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 20:38, 3 March 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

gmscalia is my account. I am not theMiko123, and never have been. I am a legitimate contributor, senior cardiologist, and authorative on echocardiography. Gmscalia (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While it was found that it is only possible that you are the same as TheMikol23, CheckUser leaves very little doubt that you have used multiple accounts yourself. —DoRD (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2015 (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.