User talk:Wikisanchez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Wikisanchez, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You were very kind and helpful, and I know you're a really nice guy. I hope the work I've done survives. My best wishes. Wikisanchez (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the page User:Wikisanchez/Rockefeller Sanitary Commission, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Timeline of senescence research[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Timeline of senescence research has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LArge amount of original research, supported by primary sources. Also containing inaccuracies (e.g., group selection is not a "theory of aging").

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I've removed the proposed deletion tag, which I believe was added prematurely (you've only just created the article). However, I've replaced it with maintenance tags reflecting Randykitty's concerns about the article. Specifically, that there may be original research (which is not allowed on Wikipedia), that it relies too heavily on primary sources, and that there may be factual inaccuracies. Perhaps Randykitty can say a bit more about the issues he saw. I'd recommend opening a dialogue on the article's talk page. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia -- let me know if you have any questions about any of this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of senescence research for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of senescence research 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/Timeline of senescence research 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of healthcare in India, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Berhampore, Mahuva and Katra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of influenza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synthesis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of healthcare in Kenya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kikuyu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of healthcare in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of stroke, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bethesda and Plethora. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Timeline of healthcare in China
added a link pointing to Taizhou
Timeline of healthcare in Japan
added a link pointing to Nara

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of melanoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radiation exposure. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

Hi. I just wanted to explain my reversion[1] of your edit at History of genetic engineering. I won't go over the background too much, but there have been many battles fought over the use of English variations in articles (see Talk:Orange (colour) for one of the larger battlefields). It has been decided then that unless there are strong national ties to an article (i.e the person or place is American or British) then we just go with the spelling used when the article was created. MOS:RETAIN explains it better. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of tuberculosis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phthisis and Richard Morton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Wikisanchez. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR[edit]

Right now we have a content dispute. If you do not work this out on the Talk page, that becomes a behavior issue, which I will take to ANI. So please continue the discussion on the Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As for what I see it's you the one who has behavior issues [2]. Can you please stop destroying the work of others? Using "citation needed" tags will be more constructive and diplomatic.Wikisanchez (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring notice[edit]

No discussion! Not good.

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Timeline of cholera shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

World Journals[edit]

You used a page by worldjournals.org for Timeline of yellow fever, and those pages are Wikipedia mirrors, making this a circular source. It was copied from Yellow fever. See WP:PUS for more on such misleading sources. Fences&Windows 23:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.Wikisanchez (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Timeline of hepatitis has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I'll be more careful in the future.Wikisanchez (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Vipul's paid editing enterprise. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you indefinitely for violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, specifically, undisclosed paid editing over an extended period. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What? Why did you do that?Wikisanchez (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Please, unblock me. I want to cover as many diseases as possible. Try to compare my works with prose versions, and you will see the value added (I read your opinion about my work on the other thread, where I'm unable to comment). As for the undisclosed paid editing, that's just false!. Things that aren't on my sponsor's list are just edits on my own (E.g., edits on Victoria Ocampo). Please, revert! You are doing a great damage by doing this.Wikisanchez (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
A couple of comments:
  1. I see disclosure here
  2. Before I am happy to see this kind of paid editing continue it should be presented to the community as a proposal for discussion and approval.
Are you willing to stop paid editing until this has been achieved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
If that's the condition, yes. I have activities on my own.Wikisanchez (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
User:JzG thoughts? Other justification to keep them blocked? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I have been blocked under false accusation. Please check my userpage.Wikisanchez (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Spamming and violation of TOU. There's a published list of paid articles by Vipul, which list to these articles and list Sanchez as having been paid to do them. It's a sneaky SEO MLM scheme, by the looks of it - see WP:COIN. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there also issues with multiple paid editors from this group weighing in on the same discussion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@JzG: It seems like you're saying that despite blocking for "Violation of terms of use (undisclosed paid editing)" when the paid editing was, in fact, explicitly disclosed, the block will stand because it looks like a sneaky SEO MLM scheme? (But with none of the other participants blocked and discussion about the whether in fact it is such a scheme is ongoing)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
There was no disclosure in the paid articles I reviewed, and at the time I reviewed the user page there was no disclosure there either. It should not be necessary to be Sherlock Holmes to find out that an article is spam. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
JzG are you being honest? Which articles are those that you reviewed? Rhododendrites, Doc James please take a look hereand try to find the problem. And which article is the spam? JzG is not being clear in his accusation. You can't block me out of suspicion.Wikisanchez (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@JzG: and at the time I reviewed the user page there was no disclosure there either - ... ? It's been on the userpage since it was created, and at the time you blocked it said this: "Currently I'm being funded by Vipul Naik to edit Wikipedia. Most of my current work at Wikipedia is related to the agreement with Vipul Naik (detailed description here and here). The list only includes completed articles; articles I am working on are likely to be included in the list later once they are completed." The TOU, which was the reason for the block, says "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions." It doesn't require more than one of those and doesn't require e.g. a list of articles on the user page in order to count as disclosure, although the userpage does link to a list of those articles which you point out are listed at Vipul's website. Best practice, via WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE, would be to use the talk page template, too, and to migrate the list of articles on-wiki, but these are neither TOU violations nor call for a block without, so far as I can see, any request to improve his manner of disclosure in these ways prior to the block. There's clearly no consensus yet to call the Vipul enterprise spam, so supplementing the TOU violation rationale with that doesn't seem any better. I have to think there's an oversight here, and would recommend unblocking pending the outcome of the ANI thread (though I haven't seen a block even proposed there yet). To be clear, I agree that disclosure should be better, and that if the editing behavior doesn't change a block is in order (or if the Vipul's explanation turns out to have been spurious), but for now there's no TOU violation so a block for TOU violation shouldn't stand. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There are concerns about Vipul's explanation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The disclosure scheme is the same for all Vipul's team. Why am I the only one to be blocked?
Also please write this in your browser "JzG, aka JewzG aka Guy Andre Chapman" and take a look at some reputation the guy who blocked me has achieved. Pay attention to the Famous Quotations and see what kind of people you are trusting to.Wikisanchez (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Doc James go to encyclopedia dramatica and type: JzG. That article will lead to things he did on Wikipedia.Wikisanchez (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This comment is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I know. The site is not a serious place. I'm sorry for that (impossible to revert). But it shows the language the administrator JzG uses on wikipedia. Thank you.Wikisanchez (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Doc James: ?? So you're saying that there are concerns about Vipul's explanation justifies a block for TOU when there was no TOU violation? (concerns, of course, being quite distinct from anything resembling consensus -- i.e. concerns aren't sufficient to indefinitely block while discussion is ongoing, even if that were the reason given for the block). By all means continue the discussion, and if Vipul's enterprise is found to be problematic then take appropriate action, but I still say this is a clear cut bad block (so bad that it's the only time in memory I've ever called a block bad, and one of the few times I've argued against a paid editor being blocked). I'll wait for Guy's response, but this seems so utterly clear that I'd rather not bring it to AN for review. That said, Wikisanchez you're making it hard to want to advocate for your unblocking if you're going to take this into personal attacks. Stick to the facts of what's going on. Any claim that's backed by Encyclopedia Dramatica is not likely to go over well, and attacking someone by citing one of its attack pages can be justification for a block on its own. I get being frustrated by this, but it's important not to bring it there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I was also not seeing sufficient justification to maintain the block once the user agree to stop paid editing until consensus has formed. Following the personal attacks via ED I am no longer willing to support their unblock and support their continue block for the latter rather than the former reason. We need to take issues of harassment and attempted outing seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Doc James I apologize for that. Human being here. I was creating content inside and outside Vipul's project, ending up being attacked and blocked like this. I didn't have time to learn how to cope legal issues in WP because I was busy creating content. Can you please consider that way? Take a look at the works I've been doing and see if you find any value in them. I didn't come to wikipedia to attack people. I'm the only one blocked in all this issue. And also, I'm not receiving feedback to defend myself. It's me with my mistakes. Thank you.Wikisanchez (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you should see this AFD Timeline of senescence research.At no stage in this AFD did either WikiSanchez or Rhododendrites inform the other side that these were paid edits. After that Wikisanchez has been editing essentially unsupervised and this article is full of OR/SYNTH.Inlinetext (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Inform? It was disclosed from the beginning! Everybody could read my user page.Wikisanchez (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC) (Edit here)
There has been some disclosure on Wikisanchez's user page since May 14, 2016[3]
Agree that disclosure however is insufficiently clear "articles I am working on are likely to be included in the list later once they are completed." And there is no disclosure on the talk page of Timeline_of_typhoid_fever
Agree that what Vipul is doing is concerning and has occurred without community consensus. Hum
Also this was Wikisanchez's first edit [4]. Wikisanchez do you have other accounts that you have used before? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Not in English. There is an account in Spanish (my native language) here where I inform about one work being sponsored by Vipul.Wikisanchez (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay thank makes sense. Can you list all the articles on EN WP that you have been paid to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Wait, I wrote undisclosed. I meant disclosed from the beginning (See the dates and compare). Timeline of typhus typhoid fever wasn't ready yet when I was blocked. Once I hit some satisfactory level it would be ready. So it had to go early to the list without some historical events I was planning to include (It happended in the middle of all this issue).Wikisanchez (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The list is here (Full list of tasks in reverse chronological order (66 tasks)). It is complete.Wikisanchez (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
To be more accurate, this is the first revision after I created my userpage ( 14 May 2016), and true, my first work with Vipul, Timeline of cholera, was published on 23 April 2016‎ [5]. Therefore there wasn't disclosure exactly from the beginning.Wikisanchez (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Still, I don't know why are we being treated this way. Vipul even offered to sponsor klerokinesis, which was originally not meant to be included in his project.Wikisanchez (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears there are further concerns involved.
As this is such a large case will take time to review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
At no stage in this AFD did either WikiSanchez or Rhododendrites inform the other side... eh? How did this become my responsibility? I had no idea he was a paid editor then -- which, yes, is a problem -- that's just the reason his talk page was on my watchlist. Best practice is to overdisclose, yes, and he didn't do that. Still not a TOU violation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Had Wikisanchez place a COI notice as is mandatory under TOU and FTC regulations on the article page (as distinguished from the article talk page), this situation would not have arisen. In fact Wikisanchez's defence (see above) that he had disclosed his paid affiliations on his user page but which also show that a group of editors at AFD failed to catch that the article was a paid edit clearly exposes that WP:PAID is flawed and does not at all comply with the FTC directives. If experienced wikipedia editors cannot detect such paid edits at a discussion focussed on the article how can ordinary inexpert readers/consumers of wikipedia who the FTC regulation is meant for ? I disagree that this was not a ToU violation. Inlinetext (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
as is mandatory under TOU no. it's not. disclosure on his user page completely satisfies the TOU, and nowhere does it require placing a notice on the article page. If WP:PAID is flawed, ok. I'm not opining about that. However, that's completely irrelevant to this block, as one cannot be expected to follow rules that don't actually exist. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see WMF's FAQ on paid disclosure under sub-section What is the "applicable law" for paid contributions on Wikipedia and its sister sites? . Inlinetext (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
What is the point you would like me to extract from this? It sounds like you're saying it indicates that disclosure on a userpage isn't sufficient and/or that the FTC would require something else. I don't see that, however. You suggested adding it to the article itself, which this explicitly rejects ("if local laws require disclosure of sponsorship of an edit in the article text itself, and putting such a message in the article text violated community rules (as it likely does in most projects), then such edits would be prohibited." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The ToU incorporate that "applicable laws" are in addition to generic terms of ToU. Since the employer 'Vipul' is admittedly resident in USA (as is his employer), the FTC /DOT.COM directives automatically apply to his edits. Since Vipul (and his workers) are prohibited from adding those regulatory conspicuous / easily noticed cautions by En.WP policy then his/teams edits are automatically prohibited ab-initio. The German Court has held "the average consumer who uses Wikipedia does not read the discussion pages" based on the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. From Vipul's off-site disclosure his team edits are also within the scope of the EU Directive (but it would be premature for me to link here to it). Inlinetext (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Appealing the block[edit]

This case seems to have fallen through the cracks -- no progress since 10 March. If you like, I can start a block review at WP:ANI. Let me know. Kingsindian   12:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel thankful for that, but I prefer to leave things as they are. At least for now. My best wishes for you :)Wikisanchez (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I have unblocked per the fact that this user has disclosed paid editing, and the edits seem to be straightforward additions of information to health and healthcare articles. Andrevan@ 22:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Timeline of healthcare in the United Kingdom) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Timeline of healthcare in the United Kingdom, Wikisanchez!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great timeline!

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Therapeutice Specialis ad Febres Periodicas Perniciosas) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Therapeutice Specialis ad Febres Periodicas Perniciosas, Wikisanchez!

Wikipedia editor Winged Blades of Godric just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

V.good!

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Winged Blades Godric 14:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Plasmodium[edit]

Thank you for these two pages.

There are a lot more for these parasites and indeed others to do. Virion123 (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome :) On my way!Wikisanchez (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Wikisanchez. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Vipul Naik. Wikisanchez (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Wikisanchez. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NOA building[edit]

Notice

The article NOA building has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient in reliable, independent sources, and search results do not turn up enough reliable sources. Fails WP:NBUILDING.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to. Stop removing revdel templates - this is a policy issue and the history still must be removed to comply with copyright. Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I improved and removed the template as policy states. I also clarified why I removed it. You happened to delete a lot of content btw. Do you think that's an honest thing you did? Wikisanchez (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
"An honest thing"? I am following policy and your edits have been removed again as changing around a word or two doesn't negate the copyright as it's still substantially the same. Praxidicae (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
What I'm doing is legal. And you're deciding by yourself whether I'm violating or not Copyright. Btw don't you have better things to do with your time other than complicating the life of others? I didn't mean to harm society by creating this article. It's a notable building. Maybe you could use your time to improve the article instead of penalizing. 22:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Wikisanchez (talk)
No, what you are doing is in violation of the WP:COPYRIGHT policy. Consider this your final warning before you are blocked. Praxidicae (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Consider this, if you manage to get me blocked, it will have a negative impact on Wikipedia, if that's what you want. I think some people should get a life. Have a good night.Wikisanchez (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Israel Society for Microscopy[edit]

I see you created the article Israel Society for Microscopy back in March and was delighted to seeanother person dedicated to improving vcoverage of the field of microscopy byt was a little disappointed at the poor quality of the article and to see that you are a paid editor. Was this edit paid and are you interested in microscopy? Thanks. UaMaol (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not paid for this as I was in the past. It's part of research on information I assemble elsewhere for work. Not all what I do on Wikipedia is for pay. Feel free to improve it, as I will not get money for your contributions. And the advantage you have is that your username instead of mine will appear in the history section.Wikisanchez (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Israel Society for Microscopy[edit]

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 Israel Society for Microscopy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Viztor (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)