User talk:Saynotopharmacareer

Hello, Saynotopharmacareer, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

March 2012

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Pharmaceutical industry in India. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please also note that Wikipedia is not here to be your soapbox against a particular industry. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Pharmaceutical industry in India, you may be blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

You're not citing anything; everything you post must be verifiable, and we cannot rely on unsourced material. I also saw that you made a personal attack to Gogo Dodo. First, calm down, He was not insulting your intelligence, "challenging" you, or trying to revoke your rights of Free Speech. There are some policies Wikipedia has for citing material, that you do not have any knowledge of. You can always gather sources and attempt to reinsert your information with them, try doing that.

No more attacks, control yourself.

Abigail was here :D _{Talk to Me.} _{Email Me.} 10:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Saynotopharmacareer. You have new messages at AbigailAbernathy's talk page.
Message added 12:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I am a Ninja, and this is my master. 12:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Saynotopharmacareer. You have new messages at AbigailAbernathy's talk page.
Message added 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Abigail was here :D _{Talk to Me.} _{Email Me.} 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here What is the problem for the writing true things? You want reference, I can provide you the reference, but stating me as a "profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia" isn't sounds bad or biased. As you can see, why you people have a rude tone of replying? People can claim that I am attacking them, but do not see that they are attacking the other people, on humble request for an explaination, it is stated as a "default template"???

There is nothing that stops me from publishing my views on the internet other then Wikipedia, but sure, the faith which I had placed in the Wiki has vaporized and you will be surely telling me "to fuck off/leave" as wiki seems to be a moderator's choice and not really What I know but What Mods wants.

From this Year, I pledge, that I will not contribute (my knowledge or money) for the Wikipedia as It is not a portal for a free speech, but something where speech which can be easily suppressed at whim of a moderator.

Sorry for the "F" Word but this is the most suitable word used for the attitudes of the moderators.

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Saynotopharmacareer (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your current username is clearly promoting an agenda (which is backed up by your edits). If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to choose a more acceptable username and agree to stop pushing your personal agenda, and stop attacking the admins who rightly blocked you. And no, Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, it is an encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2012 (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.

What is the problem for the writing true things? You want reference, I can provide you the reference, but stating me as a "profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia" isn't sounds bad or biased. As you can see, why you people have a rude tone of replying? People can claim that I am attacking them, but do not see that they are attacking the other people, on humble request for an explaination, it is stated as a "default template"???

There is nothing that stops me from publishing my views on the internet other then Wikipedia, but sure, the faith which I had placed in the Wiki has vaporized and you will be surely telling me "to fuck off/leave" as wiki seems to be a moderator's choice and not really What I know but What Mods wants.

From this Year, I pledge, that I will not contribute (my knowledge or money) for the Wikipedia as It is not a portal for a free speech, but something where speech which can be easily suppressed at whim of a moderator.

Sorry for the "F" Word but this is the most suitable word used for the attitudes of the moderators.

Hi. Judging by a conversation on another user's Talk page, I believe you need help formatting a new unblock request. What you need to do is place the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page, replacing "Your reason here" with the reason you think you should be unblocked. But please note that Wikipedia is most definitely *not* a place for you to publish your own views - it is an encyclopedia, and its articles must only contain verifiable material, written in a neutral way, and supported by reliable sources (click on those blue links to learn more). So if you wish to be unblocked, you will need to pursue a very different line of reasoning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you also just posted an unblock request from an anonymous IP address while not logged in (assuming it really was you). It has been removed now. You need to log in to post an unblock request, otherwise we have no way of knowing if it's really you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

That was my own message, would you like me type over again or we can revert the comment automatically, Also, for your "he has already formatted one request properly" comment, sure the first block request was a "block" and had a option for filing of the request.Please, it is ok for me if even you change positively my page as a human we must trust each other, else as a God, you can abuse me and delete my pages or comments. Regards, email redacted Saynotopharmacareer (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not seeing a request to be unblocked here actually, just some commentary with unclear purpose. You are going to have to indicate what new username you would like if you want to be unblocked, you cannot use the one you have now. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2012 (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.

As you have confirmed the IP message was indeed from you, I think it's OK to reinstate the unblock request message...

Ok, I suppose this is the way to revert back to the unblocking procedure, Ok please entails the procedure, wherein I can provide you a verifying information... As till now request for providing the procedure for providing the verifying information, has fallen on deaf ears and each of the concerned persons has only beaten his own chest by first using the insulting intimidating tones, to blocking my username, to asking me to accept the decision provided by the moderater and etc and etc... If my account is blocked as with name only because "it is against some one and has the propaganda, does some one with name of jesus or mary or satan or devil has any propaganda hidden in it?" Will Wiki people ban it as you have to maintain a "neutral" tone? does blade of northen waves has a threatening tone to it or violating terms, Can I edit my name to Blades in Medicines? Though wiki is an encyclopedia of the modern times, but it is still maintained by ethics of some cynical rules which discriminates what is true or False? maybe your username is against something in my place or some other, that doesn't mean that we have to ban the person. A username is nothing, but what that person contributes is more essential. Also It is no point in fighting over my username as if I had created for fun purpose, I would not had edited or contacted you for the same SO MANY TIME, I am doing only because I AM SERIOUS, Hence It is a humble request to unblock the username and allow to publish the necessary edits. (originally by User:116.75.1.189 13:17, 1 April 2012‎, restored by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

To respond to part of your latest unblock message, the instructions for posting a second unblock request are the same as included in the original block message. But be that as it may, the only person who can post unblock requests is you yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After your latest unblock request was quite rightly declined, I hope you don't mind a couple of points from me in case you are thinking of making a further request...
1. You can not continue with your current user name.
2. You can not add your personal opinions to Wikipedia articles.
There is no negotiation possible on either of those two points. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, you must log in to make an unblock request - unblock requests made logged out by an anonymous IP will usually be removed (as the latest one has been) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I am logged in, I can provide you the screen shot of "login status" and I was also while doing the unblock comment. I verify I am the same. Is my unblock request is going to be restored or I have to type again?Saynotopharmacareer (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are logged in now, and we don't need a screenshot - we can tell by your signature and from the article history. But you were NOT logged in when you made your last unblock request, as can be seen here - the edit was made and signed by IP 115.248.56.213, not by Saynotopharmacareer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Am I going to have a free and fair trial, My unblock reasons are always deleted for some or the other reasons, Is wiki not going to atleast revert back the reasons I had stated earlier??? Looking forward for a fair learning on the sameSaynotopharmacareer (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked because your username is not acceptable, as has been explained to you. Please use {{unblock-un}} to request a new username. There is no question of a free and fair trial; you are required to follow wikipedia guidelines. You will need to be logged into your account if you choose to post a further unblock request; and please recognise that this is an encyclopedia, and articles must be adequately referenced and must follow conflict of interest policy. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:51, 9 April 2012 (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 going to comment rather than decline to unblock. Please calm down and try to understand that we do know what we are talking about. You should seek a new username in your unblock request - or at least suggest a new one. You are extremely unlikely to be unblocked until you do this. Your username is not suitable as it is promoting a message - just as names like Bloggso_washes_greener or Vote_for_Fred_Bloggs are unsuitable. The other problem is that you don't seem to understand that this is not a place for promoting your point of view. What you are saying may well be true, but this is an encyclopaedia and we do not allow promotion of goods, services, ways of getting to heaven, political material - or anything. We require edits to be neutral and preferably to be referenced in reliable independent sources (WP:RS). You may have seen these things happen - but by our rules of verifiability we cannot accept that (WP:V). 'Free speech' does not apply on Wikipedia in the way you think it should. This is a community run website, and the community sets the rules. There is no freedom to post whatever you like. There is freedom to be a part of the community and to edit by the rules, and as you get more knowledge, to take part in the discussions that make the rules. Please be calm and ask questions and we will try to answer them as soon as we can - remember that we are all volunteers, even the administrators and bureaucrats. Peridon (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your deleted requests, as has been explained to you a number of times, you can only request unblock or explain your reasons when you are logged in. The only requests and/or reasons that have been deleted were made from a logged-out IP address, and they absolutely cannot be considered. Edit here only when logged in, or you will be reverted - it really cannot be explained any more simply than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

I have only just seen this personal attack, and this appeal for help in pushing your personal agenda. Coupled with your refusal to listen to anything you have been told on this page, and your continuing combative attitude, I am quite convinced that you have no intention of helping us build an encyclopedia and that any further discussion here would simply waste the time of people who have more important things to do. I have therefore revoked your ability to edit this Talk page - if you wish to make any further unblock appeals, you will need to follow the instructions at WP:BASC. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although Bong is an accomplished admin who has no need of my support, I would nevertheless like to state that in my opinion this action is wholly correct.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]