Jump to content

User talk:Rakeshyashroy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rakeshyashroy, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

[edit]
The
Adventure
The Wikipedia Adventure guide

Hi Rakeshyashroy!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

[edit]
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 04:27, Monday, November 11, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Reference Errors on 20 March

[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) 00:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the talk page of WPMED. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. MEDRS typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
  • Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!--LT910001 (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

[edit]
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 04:27, Monday, November 11, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Rakeshyashroy, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned one of your edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse invitation

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Rakeshyashroy, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Sunrise (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Membrane vesicle trafficking may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category: Biological

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Qourum sensing

[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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Piguy101 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

[edit]
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 04:27, Monday, November 11, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together


[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Membrane vesicle trafficking, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cell, Golgi and Vesicles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for pointing out my errors. Needful has been done. Rakeshyashroy (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 15, 2014 Dear editor, In regard to wikipedia page on 'Membrane vesicle trafficking', i have found my reference of YashRoy R C (1993) in Indian Journal of Animal science, vol 63, pp. 99-102, and text related to it, deleted twice, despite that i introduced both these again. It is a critically important reference, revealing, in vivo involvement of Salmonella-released outer membrane vesicles trafficking bacterial materials to animal host cells. Kindly see, that is not deleted any more, as it is important in this place here. Thanks!Rakeshyashroy (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of secondary sources instead of primary sources

[edit]

Hello! I saw at Talk:Membrane vesicle trafficking that you were talking with CatPath about adding a citation to an article. As CatPath says, Wikipedia guidelines for citing medical sources request secondary sources rather than primary sources. I looked at your other edits to see you cited the same paper several times in different articles. The paper you cite is from 1993. Since that time, has there been any review article which reconsidered the paper you are citing along with all other primary research? A secondary source like that would be preferred by Wikipedia. We try not to cover primary research in general articles. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the reply. However, this primary reference is yet not covered well enough in a secondary reference. Besides, this refence of YashRoy (1993) is imortant as such for any interested reader, as this topic 'membrane vesicle trafficking' with respect to 'prokaryotes' is still an emerging area of research and discussion. Please do maintain it here.
ALSO, kindly include the new figure to explain this 'membrane vesicle trafficking' process, as linked. 49.201.14.95 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are different standards on Wikipedia for reporting research. I do not know anything about the field in which you are editing as I only checked the kind of source you were using, as I do in subjects relating to human health. If you talk about prokaryotes then the standard is much lower than for human health, and primary research is okay. It is only when a contributor begins to talk about human health that secondary sources become a requirement. In some cases, primary research can be discussed in articles about human health if the research is noted as research, and not something which is accepted or known widely. If you have any difficulties with what you are doing then message me and I would comment more. I do not know the 'membrane vesicle trafficking' figure - has this been removed? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks for the good hard editorial study you have pointed out. I appreciate your policy and general purpose of widpedia. I just have to say, at times, a 'primary refence' is meant for marking new 'path-breaking' information, which may even, have been missed by secondary sources of the day, because it is slightly ahead of time. Kindly, therefore, retain the primary references at least in the pages ab initio started by me. However, from my edits on the work of other experts, some could be removed if other authors disagree to my added reference.
I have given a link to a figure on page of 'membrane vesicle trafficking' from my common uploads page. Another one is give likewise on my edit note at page, 'lipid polymorphism'. The figures are not opening automatically, but upon a 'click', they do. Kindly, help make these figures visible automatically. Thanks, once again.
Hi, I thought that I should present my thoughts in greater detail here since the issue relates to several Wikipedia articles. (I moved your most recent response to the bottom so that the conversation could be followed more easily.) You state that your 1993 study was ground breaking. Highly influential studies would be described in high-quality secondary sources. Yes, review articles from the mid-1990s may have missed prominent studies that appeared in 1993. However, it has been more than 20 years since your 1993 study. There has been ample opportunity for other experts in the field to assess the study . If the 1993 findings were ground-breaking, it would have been described in the numerous review articles that have been written about bacterial membrane vesicles since then. According to Google Scholar [1], there are no review articles that cite the 1993 study. (The few scientific articles that cite the 1993 paper are all primary sources, all but one written by you.) Therefore, your Wikipedia edits that imply that the 1993 study is highly influential (such as the claim that it was the first to demonstrate clearly an in vivo role for OMVs [2]) place undue weight on its findings over those described in the critical studies mentioned in review articles.
There is also a problem with your figure. It depicts an 11-year-old model that explains how outer membrane vesicles may be generated. This model is not supported by studies published since 2003. Specifically, the role proposed for the needle complex in pinching off the membrane vesicle is one that is not recognized in recent review articles. Salmonella is capable of transporting the contents of outer membrane vesicles to the target cell even when the needle complex of the type III secretion system is absent. Therefore, this obsolete figure should be amended or removed from Wikipedia articles that harbor the figure. CatPath (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for critical inputs made. Regarding, figure, i do not know if there are some other gram negative microbes which lack T3SS. I have already explained justifications for including the 1993 reference; it is prerogative of wikipedia to remove it if is desired so. Thanks again. 49.201.15.111 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi!.Thanks for a point well-made; needful amend on 'vesicle' has been made. Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Membrane vesicle trafficking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vesicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change of place

[edit]

Hi! I shall be in Canada till I inform again.Rakeshyashroy (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Membrane vesicle trafficking. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Kindly reason that original reference of 1993, is genuinely justified here to make the write-up comprehensible, giving credit where it is rightly due. Thus, i am including it in the text; please let it stay here.Rakeshyashroy (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Membrane fluidity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EPR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks and needful is done. Also thanks for reducing some large figures of mine to optimal size.Rakeshyashroy (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Kindly see that figure 1 and its dicussion in text and also, its crucial reference of year 1993 are not deleted from page on 'Membrane vesicle trafficking'. As, it is an emerging area of research, this page includes just two important review papers (refs 1 and 2); all others (refs 3-10) are original research papers in proper order, and each one having its own critically important informational content. If more information is available on this topic, it may be added - however, no delition please!Rakeshyashroy (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Membrane vesicle trafficking. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for interaction on this. Repeated deletion of important information being given on page of 'membrane vesicle trafficking' by unknown persons has actually tired me. Thanks for looking into it. Rakeshyashroy (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

Lipid bilayer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fluidity
Membrane biophysics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Unsaturation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

You have added images to wikimedia and have used them in wikipedia articles that appear to violate copyright, as they are owned by the journal that published them. Examples:

As far as I can see, every image that you have uploaded to commons and there a lot, are copyright violations because they come from scientific publications that take ownership of copyright and do not freely license them. Your notes on Wikicommons say these are your "own work" but that is not true, as you have published them and have transferred copyright. Please remove these images from the commons and do not use them in WIkipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As far as known to me, I have not signed the 'transfer of rights' agreement with Indian Journal of Animal Science and Toxicology International. If you have any specific objections from these journals, these may kindly be forwarded to me, and as yet, need not exlclude the above figures from wiki pedia.Rakeshyashroy (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assigning copyright to the journal is standard practice in scientific publishing. Journals like PLOS, that offer re-use through the creative commons license, are new and still fairly rare to the best of my knowledge. I went to find the website of the "Indian Journal of Animal Science and Toxicology International" to verify your unusual claim, and did not find it. Would you please provide a link to the journal's website so I can verify their copyright policy? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, the third image above is from the journal "Current Science". On the wikimedia page you say "own work" but [http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/reproduce.php the journal's webpage says: "Those who wish to reproduce any material from the journal must obtain prior permission from the Indian Academy of Sciences." This is what people say who own copyright. Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the journal you mean is the "Indian Journal of Animal Sciences" , that journal has a copyright notice here, which makes it clear that the journal owns the copyright: "The copyright of the articles published in The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences vests with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, who has the right to enter into any agreement with any organization in India or abroad engaged in reprography, photocopying, storage and dissemination of information contained in these journals. The Council has no objection in using the material, provided the information is being utilized for academic purpose but not for commercial use. Due credit line should be given to the ICAR where information will be utilized." It is clear that journal owns the copyright, not the author. This ~may~ be interpreted as a limited grant to reproduce figures in places like Wikipedia, but it is not clear. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! thanks for above search and information. It means that the pictures are my own work, and i have not sold their rights to any journal. And these journals allow me to re-use the published work for extension of science and knowledge, created by me, for information to mankind. This is exactly what Wilipedia stands for. Further on, if this information is re-used by anyone else, for making profits; then, of course, the future profit-maker(s) should pay to journal as well as to the author. Kindly, see that impediments are not put against a good cause, on the pretext of unimportant technicalities. Affectionately, Rakeshyashroy (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I wrote means that you own these images. Please read WP:COPYVIO. If you do not take this seriously and think through this carefully I will have to escalate this to one of the copyright boards. I don't like drama boards but WP takes copyright very seriously because it creates legal issues, and if you are not going to take responsibility others will have to do that for you. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Kindly let me know that if there is an expiry date of copyright by journals, or they are valid for ever? Rakeshyashroy (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in india it is 60 years and in the US it is 75. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that you posted all those images to Wikimedia commons and told the world that you own them and that everybody is free to do with them whatever they want, including making money with them. As far as I can tell this is simply untrue. My suggestion is that you have every one of those images deleted from the commons and then determine ownership of each one and what license (if any) is available to it, and for ones that you want to re-post, accurately describe ownership and license rights when you repost them. That is the good faith thing for you to do now. Everybody makes mistakes but now that you know about it, you should fix it. 13:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK! i shall delete images, the ones for which i signed the 'transfer of copyright' paper with journals. Thanks for the guidance.

above, you seemed unaware of which ones you signed away and which ones you did not. you should take down ALL of them and review each one. all the ones I spot checked claimed that you owned them, and if you published it in a journal that is NOT TRUE. The uploading wizard asks you many times, in bold face, about ownership and license rights and you completely ignored that already. Again, I strongly advise you to take all of them down and then upload only ones you are sure about. This is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Your actions have put Wikipedia at legal risk. Do you understand that? Please do not be cavalier about this. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the commons, you keep writing that the work you uploaded has been "modified" or "derived from" one that you already published. Copyright covers the right to make derivative works. By saying that you modified it or derived it from one that you already published - that you already assigned to a journal - you are admitting copyright infringement. PLEASE stop fighting deletion of these images, that violate copyright. You are arguing but you do not seem to understand wikimedia's rules and you do not understand copyright. Please stop already! Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

Please stop inserting your research everywhere into wikipedia. Please see the charts in this article on experts' conflicts of interest, which show ways that you should not contribute, and ways that you could contribute in a very valuable way. Somebody with your credentials could be a very valuable contributor to Wikipedia. With your knowledge of the field you could very easily identify the most important recent reviews and summarize and cite them in relevant articles. Instead, you just keep adding content about your own research, which is just self-promotion. Additionally the content you add synthesizes your research in ways that amount to original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please change your behavior. Based on your behavior in the past, and the several warnings about this you have been given above, it appears that you have been not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead are just here to promote your past research. If you continue this behavior, you are likely to get banned from Wikipedia. Please, use your expertise to improve the articles in which you have expertise, by adding content based on recent reviews in the biomedical literature. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Useful link to 'conflict of interests'. I have read it now. I have tried to be judicious in writing on wikipedia, keeping public interest in mind. As one would be knowing more in one's own field of work, one could, perhaps contribute conveniently in that. I also must know how peers feel and thus, act accordingly; thanks for the valuable input.Rakeshyashroy (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to let you know, that as far as I understand it, Wikiversity might be a place for you to discuss and cite your past research. I am not sure about that, but check out https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Original_research and the links there, if you like.Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear, i shall visit Wikiuniv as per your advice.Rakeshyashroy (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Bacterial Outer Membrane Vesicles was accepted

[edit]
Bacterial Outer Membrane Vesicles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

j⚛e deckertalk 21:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion

[edit]

Hello and welcome. All further additions by yourself citing "Yashroy" will be removed as dishonest attempts at self-promotion. You have already been informed not to add material promoting yourself.

I am very disappointed in your behaviour. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Hello dear, I have not written anything on Wikipedia for a longtime, except some punctuation corrections here and there. 99.224.1.212 (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly change the above harsh caption from the 'talk-page'. Virtually all my edits had new and useful content with no 'dishonesty' meant - being equally fair to all, including myself. I never deleted a single sentence from any post but simply added missing information on what i understood best, using personal experience, without denying the fair credit, as and where it is due, including my own scientific work. On page 'membrane vesicle trafficking', the first report on observing membrane vesicles in any animal tissue in vivo (YashRoy, 1993) was deleted umpteen number of times, despite my explanations, rendering the presentation truncated and not factual, that also made me accept discredit, not due to me. For me, Science seeks Truth with fair deal to its seekers, including myself. Kindly re-examine all my edits and revise the harsh words used in the caption above, accordingly. Affectionately Rakeshyashroy (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've revised the section header per talk page guidelines. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear!Rakeshyashroy (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are sliding back into citing your own publications in articles again. Please please keep in mind that all Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources. For science-based WP articles, that means reviews published in the literature - not research papers, which are primary sources. Please use review articles, not primary sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK and thanks!Rakeshyashroy (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are back at it again! As we have discussed several times, please use your expertise to find reviews (secondary sources) in the literature and paraphrase them. Please stop inserting discussion of your own works into Wikipedia. As we discussed, you can have a field day building content in WIkiUniversity. Please do not do this at WIkipedia. thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear! This reference was once there, earlier too in this 'Salmonella' topic; but was removed because of copyright considerations of the picture (earlier taken from journal). Now an earlier version of it was re-included from a non-copyright source (a symposium preparation of year 2002). My reference cited (YashRoy 2007) is the only SECONDARY source of this citation of this pictorial data included now. This addition thus, provides highly relevant and valuable new information to what is glaringly missing on 'Salmonella' topic under discussion. Kindly peruse the content and notice this necessary requirement and re-include this picture and reference back to the topic, in the best interests of interested readers of wikipedia. Affectionately, 99.224.1.212 (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the 2007 paper is not a review nor a secondary source. it is a primary source, presenting your research findings. please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yet, there is no need to remove self-explanatory Figure 1. Rakeshyashroy (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh, that figure is taken from the 2007 paper with very little change. You cannot take things from journals that way. please stop promoting your own work. I really don't want to ask AnI to have banned for persistent WP:PROMO and WP:COPYVIO; that would be sad. Please stop. Surely others have followed this work up and there are reviews on it. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi dear! I do value your opinion as final, yet just for information, the actual source of this figure is about 5 years older than the journal publication, and is linked here https://www.academia.edu/7865236/YashRoy_R_C_2002_Nanovesicular_signaling_by_Salmonella_3_10_r_-_for_epithelial_cell_and_macrophage_invasion_in_chicken_ileum._Proc._Int._Symp._on_SALMONELLA_AND_SALMONELLOSIS_May_2002_Pluorfragan_France. Thanks! 99.224.1.212 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating page on Phase separation

[edit]

Hi! I am trying to recreate a new page on Phase separation and not editing the previously scrapped article. It is an important topic in physics, engineering, chemistry and biophysics. I am focusing on biophysical aspect more. Thanks.Rakeshyashroy (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lipid bilayer phase behavior, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cylinders and Lamellae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks! Needful corrections made.[reply]

Your edits to Bioluminescence

[edit]

I have created a link in the main text to bioluminescent bacteria, and there is a 'main' link to the List, so there is absolutely no need to reduplicate these links with a See also list as well. I have therefore reverted your edits, and hope for your understanding as to the explanation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC) That is OK. Thanks! 99.224.1.212 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, God and religion

[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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, God and religion. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Religion. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Religion – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Hi dear! Creation of new article is difficult; quick deletion is no answer. Let few people read then ask for amends and vouch for where and why of duplication, if any. Regards! Rakeshyashroy (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

Micro-incineration
added a link pointing to Tissues
Micro-spectrophotometry
added a link pointing to Polarization

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks, needful corrections have been made. Rakeshyashroy (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Enzyme localization for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enzyme localization 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/Enzyme localization 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. Ciao Mane (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Enzyme localization

[edit]

The topic Enzyme Localization has been updated with relevant information and current trends giving latest references. Rakeshyashroy (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest provisions

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Rakeshyashroy. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but when you insert a citation to one of your own scientific papers into an article on Wikipedia, as you did in the creation of the Enzyme localization article, you have a conflict of interest, and a potential for problems. I see that this has been mentioned to you before, namely this past May.

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.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. One other option, if you feel that citation to one of your own papers will significantly contribute to an article, is to place the issue up for discussion on the article's talk page, indicating a conflict of interest and your reasons why the citation is needed. If a neutral third-party editor agrees, then you should let that editor add the appropriate information. Thank you. --Bejnar (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bejnar! Thanks for useful information. Regards! Rakeshyashroy (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:PO-EMpic.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PO-EMpic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. CatPath (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC) CatPath (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rakeshyashroy&oldid=1143253139"