User talk:Lalisekhon

Welcome!

Hello, Lalisekhon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited appears to be an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally.

The page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page. If your contributions to an existing article about yourself are undone and you wish to add to it, please propose the changes on its talk page.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! CNMall41 (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lali Sekhon (January 21)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by CNMall41 was: This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Draft appears to be more of a resume or LinkedIn profile as opposed to Wikipedia page. See WP:NOTRESUME.

CNMall41 (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lalisekhon! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! CNMall41 (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write about yourself

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article about yourself, at Draft:Lali Sekhon. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lali Sekhon concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Lali Sekhon, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lali Sekhon

Hello, Lalisekhon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lali Sekhon".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Lalisekhon, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice,. Orange Mike | Talk 04:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verified

The identity of this user account has been verified by the Volunteer Response Team. Full documentation is available to trusted volunteers. If you are an English Wikipedia user and wish to confirm the verification, please leave a note at the VRT noticeboard.

Ticket: 2020100710000493

Pinging Orangemike as blocking admin. Kb03 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lali Sekhon (1) (December 7)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Curbon7 was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: See Draft:Lali Sekhon.

Curbon7 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Lali Sekhon (1)

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 Draft:Lali Sekhon (1), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

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. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am a neurosurgeon who is internationally recognized. Trying to tweak and setup profile. If I can be unblocked will trim and resubmit to fit Wikipedia requirements. Thank you. Lali Sekhon Lalisekhon (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not allowed to advertise yourself, no matter what your profession. See WP:SPAM, WP:BIO, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:50, 2 January 2021 (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.

Understood. There is no address or phone number or url on submission. Have provided links to verify claims. Again, trying to be factual. please look at my colleagues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_K._Morgan#:~:text=Michael%20Kerin%20Morgan%20AO%20is,family%20to%20Australia%20in%201957. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Mobbs and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grant_(neurosurgeon) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Owler. The list goes on.Lalisekhon (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC) could you please review those sites and see that mine is similar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalisekhon (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator so I can't see your submission, but I did glance at the others. Morgan is, among other things, AO. That's high enough on the prestige level to be a "presumtive pass until proven otherwise" under WP:NACADEMIC. The page on Mobbs doesn't have any "bright green light" items so I'd have to take a deeper look to assess if he qualifies for an article, but it's "leaning in that direction." Grant was AO as well. Owler was president of the Australian Medical Association and is AM, one step short of AO but still pretty selective. I'm not saying that each of these people actually meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines to qualify for an article, but I am saying that anyone challenging the notability of Morgan, Grant, or Owler will have an uphill battle if they wish to convince me that they are not "notable" by Wikipedia standards. I did NOT review the pages for "encyclopedic tone" or "does it look like a resume." I did check their edit histories and didn't see any obvious signs that they were auto-biographies.

Please accept my belated condolences on the loss of your colleague, Dr. Grant, in 2013. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was trained by John Grant back in the 1990s. I trained Ralph Mobbs. He did a lot for the Special Olympics too. The US does not have the same Queen's Birthday honors as Australia so hard to compare. I was the first neurosurgeon to complete a PhD in Australia then obtained an MBA. I was on the Board of Directors for AO North America. On the editorial boards for half a dozen journals. A dozen patents. 100+ publications. I'm lost.Thank you for commenting

I also went through following: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.

I also looked at WPNACADEMIC and would come under following: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (Royal Society). The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

look at these two pages: I trained these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parkinson_(neurosurgeon). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirginia_Maixner Lalisekhon (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"he is known for his compassion and empathy for his outspoken nature when he sees things that are ethically or morally wrong epitomizing the difference between a giver and a taker." -- Self-praising crap like this is why we so strongly advise against attempting to write an article about yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is what it is. You can call it crap but it's probably more subjective than objective. That part can be deleted. I am at a loss why you can't just delete the portions not factual and neutral. Look at the profiles I have listed. I would think it easy enough to delete the portions deemed subjective. blanket statements liked 'banned' and 'marked for speedy deletion' don't really help.

I got blocked by same editor on Oct 6 for matching a well-known liviing individual. By definition it makes the post notable. Again, trying to do it the right way.

curprev 04:18, 6 October 2020‎ Orangemike talk contribs‎  11,167 bytes +3,139‎  You have been indefinitely blocked from editing because your username matches the name of a well-known living individual. undothank Tag: TwinkleLalisekhon

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).

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

Request reason:

1. Can I get unblocked. Not trying to create spam or advertising 2. Can my contribution go back into my sandbox so I can edit it to make it neutral, ensure it does not look like a resume and resubmit.

I am trying to add a notable neurosurgeon. He is a thought leader in spine surgery, cerebral ischemia and artificial disc surgery. He is notable in the field of neurosurgery. Some of his peers/students already have posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Mobbs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirginia_Maixner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parkinson_(neurosurgeon) I also looked at WPNACADEMIC and would come under following: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (Royal Society). The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Thank you. Lalisekhon (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No, for the same reasons as your unblock request was declined last time. Yamla (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2021 (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.

I'm not sure how to proceed here. I am trying to place a post on a notable academic neurosurgeon here. I have given you examples of posts on his students and peers. You have labelled what I submit as spam yet the other posts were allowed. I'm blocked indefinitely which suggests that censorship is happening here. Again the post was to be similar to notable peers.Lalisekhon (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can be unblocked if you agree not to write about yourself, but at present it seems only motivation for editing is self-promotion. Some of your peers may have articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), but they have been written from a neutral point of view by uninvolved editors. In general, people with a conflict of interest do not write neutral articles, no matter how good their intentions, which is why it is strongly discouraged. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to that. i had other contributions to give wikipedia on topics that included chronic cerebral ischemia (my field of expertise) as well as spine trauma and spinal implants. Could I please be unblocked. Lalisekhon (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: - would you agree to an unblock on this basis? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused.

~~Sometimes you're writing about Lali Sekhon in the first person, sometimes in the third person. Is "He" anyone else than yourself? If so, which username would you like to use instead of his real name?~~ Ah, I misread that. Okay, no worries about that point.
You "had other contributions to give" – there had been none contributed yet, as far as I can see. In the future, I assume. Which sources do you intend to cite when writing about the topic? Do you have the work of specific researchers in mind?

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to unblock on the abovementioned basis. Sources for future article- eg chronic cerebral ischemia, mostly articles that are peer reviewed in PubMEd. More topics than specific researchers.Lalisekhon (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Assuming that you read, understand and adhere to WP:MEDRS, which I as a non-medical person can't provide thorough insights about, and with the list at WP:RSP in mind:)

You have previously insisted in the notability and importance of specific researchers' works. My main concern when asking the above question was that you might intend to cite yourself or people you have a connection to, because your opinion about their works and their importance is biased. Unblock conditions should contain a requirement not to do this.

Since 2014 (!), despite having had the chance to edit other articles all the time, all you ever did on Wikipedia was promoting yourself. Year after year, again and again, you have displayed interest in exactly one topic, self-promotion. Not even warnings about the behavior helped, and even in your unblock requests you insisted in pushing further promotion with a conflict of interest. Instead of contributing to articles about your expertise even a single time, you always used Wikipedia as a promotion platform, nothing else. This is now suddenly supposed to have changed from one unblock appeal message to the next (1, 2). I am extremely skeptical, not to simply say: I don't believe you will actually do that. You have been blocked and are understandably unhappy about that status, that's probably the only reason for the proposal. I'd be surprised to see a considerable number of positive contributions after an unblock.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration of an offer made by another editor. It's hard to move to other articles when the first is rejected. For me, it's a serial process. Life is short. The truth is out there. Take care. All the very best. Mask up and stay safe. Lalisekhon (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]