User talk:Mcbapu

Welcome!

I seek adoption from an experienced wikipedians. My area of interest is Rajput, Indian Medical Education, oil and Gas Rig, UAE, mechanical engineering.

I have agreed to reveal my other user account to Admin Doug^{talk contrib.} as per details at my that talk page User_talk:Chudasama.

As per agreement with Admin Doug^{talk contrib.}, here is list of my four different accounts in Wikipedia. I already have discussed in detail with said Admin reasons for having multiple accounts.

(1) chudasama1^{talk contribution} (2) chudasama^{talk contribution} (3) mcbapu^{talk contribution} (4) bhaiyaji2^{talk contribution}

I have decided to use now onwards only one account i.e. of mcbapu^{talk contribution} for all future edit and I seek adoption from some senior wiki user to guide me proper wiki editing.

No adoptee has come forward even after more than two weeks, may be some thing wrong, I will change my preference criteria open for any user rather constraining unnecessary choosing tab.--Mcbapu (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Can you adapt me?

Hello, Mcbapu. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 11:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wait

Mcbapu (aka Chudasama), sorry I've been away, this is why I wouldn't be a suitable adopter right now. :-\ In any case, I want to make sure you understand that so long as you use just his one account, you are free to edit. You don't have to wait for an adopter. I would, however, highly recommend that you are VERY conservative in your editing and only make well sourced edits and "copy editing". If you see a more complicated or less well documented fix, ask someone if you have it right. You may be fine, but based on the recent history with the Chudasama account, even a simple disagreement could cause people to blame you. After you've made a few hundred or so undisputed, you'll be in much better shape to defend yourself if someone comes along and doesn't like where you've placed a comma and decides to fight with you over it (I'm being ridiculous on purpose to make a point). Also remember to try to follow a no revert rule, especially to start (except in blatant vandalism, which has a special definition, see WP:Vandal). I'll try to answer your questions when I can. Good luck. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug,

Thanks again. Please make user account Chudasama as ‘normal’ user removing sock and block tag. --Mcbapu (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I think I already removed the sock tag previously, but I'll check. I'll check all the accounts for blocks and add redirects to here like the one on User:BewareofDoug (an alternate account of mine). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, sock puppet tag from user account ‘Chudasama’ is removed but it is still ‘blocked’ for edit (except own talk page) and for said purpose only all those storey like long debate had taken placed. Also account chudasama1 is fully blocked for sock puppet. I will redirect all them here but make them ‘clean’ of any negative tag so as to show them like ‘normal’ other wise now after linking all them having little black history record, some admin will hunt out again ‘left out’ survived account. I afraid for valid reason rather undergoing again for same lengthy pain making ‘unblocking’ procedure.

Thanks

User mcbapu (aka Chudasama)--Mcbapu (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate accounts

I have unblocked the other three accounts and redirected them here. Due to the discussions on User talk: Chudasama, I have redirected the user page but placed a {{doppelganger}} tag on the talk page and noted that the page history contains relevant information. I unblocked the accounts because 1) the blocks were no longer warranted, if they ever were, 2) the blocks are not necessary as you have disclosed your accounts and agreed to use only this one, if you ever violate that, any admin could easily take care of it, 3) protective/non-punitive blocks, as were previously discussed, are not supported by policy. Anyone with any questions about this should contact me directly, via e-mail if I don't reply right away. Again, I recommend that you make only copyediting (spelling, grammar, ect.) edits without discussion and that you adhere to a one revert or even zero revert rule (I do), except for obvious Vandalism; but I emphasize to other users who may read this that this is not a formal editing restriction, it's advice. The only real restriction, is that you can't use any account but this one, but that generally applies to all editors. Avoid controversy until you have developed a good editing record and a good understanding of the rules, good advice for all editors. I'll help you when I can, but I'm not around much. Feel free to e-mail me.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks Doug for clearing long pending mess with my user account. --Mcbapu (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption request removed

Hello. I've delinked the adoption request on your user page because you have not edited in recent weeks. Please note that participation in adopt-a-user requires the effort of two individuals. All potential adoptees that do not edit or seek out an adopter are automatically removed over a month to make room for adoptees that are active and want to participate. If you want to rejoin the program, feel free to message me on my talk page or post on the main adopt-a-user talk page. Thank you for your understanding. Netalarm^talk 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding copyright problems

Hello, and welcome. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here. I'm leaving this message here because of copied text in the article National Eligibility cum Entrance Test - Post Graduate.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources 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 information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk 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 without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Post Graduate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Post Graduate 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/National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Post Graduate 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The National Medical Commission

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The National Medical Commission requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/nmc-bill-sent-to-standing-committee/article22351803.ece. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting 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. Hummerrocket (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Hummerrocket (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The National Medical Commission for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The National Medical Commission 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/The National Medical Commission 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. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 19:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]