User talk:Abbasi1969

Replaceable fair use File:Kambin’s Triangle.png

Thanks for uploading File:Kambin’s Triangle.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI query

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasi1969, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse,

I have only one account abbasi1969 , the article has been coautored and coedited by other autor of peer reviewed paper that has been recently published, I can not see any evidence to the effecet that I have two account, could you please send me where that evidence is posted so I can look at it?

Nomination of Oblique lumbar lateral interbody fusion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oblique lumbar lateral interbody fusion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oblique lumbar lateral interbody fusion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse;

Could you please contact me directly to why you blocked my account? OLLIF was created by me and my coauthor for the paper that has been published in a peer reviewed paper and there is a reference to the paper in the wikipedia article that makes very clear I am one of the author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbasi1969 (talk • contribs)

I blocked your account as myself and another administrator felt it was very likely that this edit was made under your instruction, even though we could not determine whether it was by you or not. Per WP:MEAT we treat this the same way as if you had two accounts. More generally though, so far your edits have only been to promote your own research here. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and not every subject that has been mentioned in peer-reviewed papers is worthy of including in Wikipedia. I will let a third administrator review your unblock request. SmartSE (talk) 12:23, 13 October 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).

Abbasi1969 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OLLIF was created by me and my coauthor based on a peer reviewed paper and there is a reference to the pub-med indexed paper on NIH webside in the wikipedia article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524774/) that makes very clear I am one of the author, additionally I have only one Wikipedia account abbasi1969, other correction are done by other people involve in already published paper and other another paper already submitted for peer reviewed publication, regarding being biased, it is very clear that I am the main author of the peer reviewed paper and the Wikipedia article on OLLIF practically recites the content of peer reviewed paper based on full standard of scientific publication, Including IRB, standard bio-statistic methods and independent statistical evaluation. The article in Wikipedia is literally describing the very uncontroversial parts and result of a peer reviewed study that may have huge impact on public health in one of the most important and expensive area of public heath: spine. By blocking me I can not participate and make the case for why it is in greater interest of public to know about a procedure that by scientific methods has proven to have a huge positive impact on public health and health economy

Decline reason:

So, you are saying that you wish to be unblocked in order to publicise your own work. Far from being a reason to unblock you, it could be considered a reason to block you indefinitely, rather than just for a week. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:27, 14 October 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.

The thing is that Wikipedia is not for that purpose. We are an encyclopædia. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse and Jeremy,

I do appreciate your effort to keep wikipedia clean and neutral and I do understand why it has appeared that OLLIF article is self promoting, which was not our intent, we will remove any personal reference. we will reduce the entry to the technique and definition and actual peer reviewed results. I do believe there is tremendous public interest to know the surgical technique and information available exactly in this forum, where references are checked and content is reviewed. In this sense Oblique Lumbar interbody fusion is no different than "Deep brain stimulation", "Craniotomy", discectomy and numerous other wikipedia entries. Thanks

We actually don't formally review content, especially not medical content. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]