User talk:Sharmauiuc

February 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please familiarize yourself with WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information. Please do not remove cited material. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information cited in the article is compiled by unverfiable source a redio station web site. It is conflict of interest.

Once again, I refer you to WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia does not allow original research. If you have a reliable source which states the university never closed, then that material can be added to the article. Until then, please do not remove cited material from Wikipedia. Thank you. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 21:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added verifiable links which maintain the information and which are more prestigious. I have added designation information from the Canadian information.

I have removed these edits as they violate a number of Wikipedia rules, particularly WP:SYNTH. Please refer to WP:FIVE and WP:COI as well. If you continue to remove cited material, you may be blocked from further editing. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 01:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly factually incorrect information that is replacing the correct information. I would request help with the paid editor who can fix the informaition without violating the policies.

I referred you to WP:VERIFY. Did you read it? It explicitly says: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 01:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reference but you are removing it. From your name I assume u are MD. FAIMER is the reference for ECFMG exam. Why would u replace the reference.

The FAIMER IMED reference makes no mention of the 2010 closure. If you have an issue with the pearlfmradio.com reference, you can bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 01:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK please refer to perlfmradio.com reference. Please tell me where does it refer to closure in 2010. Clearly the reference is incorrect. Also where is the reference of reopening in October 2010?

I think I've made myself very clear. If you have a problem with the reference, submit a notice at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 01:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 02:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried patiently to have the history information corrected as the information is inaccurate and hurting the reputation of the University. I have also provided references which have been removed. AN email has also been sent to contact us address in Wikipedia.org. I would request the information to be corrected in the next 48 hours. . I have requested paid editing help. However, I feel that it is not going anywhere.

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) 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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, as you did at St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine, you may be blocked from editing. Your most recent edit is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV, among others. I suggest you take a step back from editing until you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 02:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that anything I add has a problem. Where can I get paid editing help ? Is there a place I can request? Because anything I add you seem to come up with some Wikipedia issue and violation. For the record, I reviewed Virginia Tech page and added what was there in Virginia Tech Alumni. Why is Virginia Tech Alumni is OK but it is not OK here. Clearly I sense some bias. Sharmauiuc (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no paid editors on Wikipedia. If you want to make an edit without it being reverted, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Core content policies. If you think material belongs in the article that is being reverted, feel free to post on the article's talk page and submit a request for comment from other editors at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. As for whatever was on the Virginia Tech page, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 02:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account

Is Cmutosteustatius (talk · contribs) also you? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the Checkuser and saw the response. What is needed where you think u are not the judge, jury and police. What kind of proof u want me to submit? I also saw that community felt I am posing a threat. Actually I would really like the person who is reverting my edits to see if he/she has any vested interest in doing that. We have more important things to do then spending time in fixing the incorrect information in wikipedia.

Thank you

Sharmauiuc (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)I don't know what are you talking about? I have been asked by the staff at the university to address the issue of incorrect information. This was brought to my attention yesterday via an email.[reply]

Delivered-To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Received: by 10.220.148.193 with SMTP id q1csp7471vcv;

       Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:07:37 -0800 (PST)

X-Received: by 10.66.11.196 with SMTP id s4mr8350519pab.207.1361610456933;

       Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:07:36 -0800 (PST)

Return-Path: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx110.postini.com [74.125.245.110])

       by mx.google.com with SMTP id yh7si5146333pbc.304.2013.02.23.01.07.32;
       Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:07:36 -0800 (PST)

Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx designates 209.85.161.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.181; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;

      spf=pass (google.com: domain of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx designates 209.85.161.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
      dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com

Received: from mail-gg0-f181.google.com ([209.85.161.181]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010amx110.postini.com ([74.125.244.10]) with SMTP; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:07:36 GMT Received: by mail-gg0-f181.google.com with SMTP id e5so273474ggh.12

       for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:07:31 -0800 (PST)

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;

       d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
       h=x-received:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version
        :content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language;
       bh=+XenH2NZpr7/Pe8rswSy/5v1kC+G3zGGqG1pHpWjsak=;
       b=Hltusn1wW0TgTuOWPh/NG/BXukvG5Ra2lEWAPjt+YcJrrhiwozmBT7L12/PP22N/tu
        2fBwvQRh9BhMiNyiw3R6k7B/Y+oojrANmVBetjL6gSbTnXc/OMdw/Y2W4uXVoZk0Ihti
        aapS5RcNiwYZbMsdqtQYgH9tJygeh/5VECwcjlIF+NYseXtAzGgAqzOnan9HwYD37So7
        9lFVp99Ep5qu/9X6smbVqSt6HF3G5NPfEppGHhNQ9uPWgz5in5iy49G2qEzpmPylC4N8
        xJroabGV5NeT5wOsCq7Ua7UQMMETU141dcYh+GaNGp0+gPBgOBoGSFcYkj4Qg/JzDs2N
        51/w==

X-Received: by 10.236.125.201 with SMTP id z49mr9747787yhh.93.1361610451384;

       Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:07:31 -0800 (PST)

Return-Path: <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Received: from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ([190.112.241.39])

       by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k45sm13068770yhd.2.2013.02.23.01.07.27
       (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
       Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:07:30 -0800 (PST)

From:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Emailing: St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 05:07:21 -0400 Message-ID: <022f01ce11a5$30e47e40$92ad7ac0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related;

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

You should try to get your wikipedia page updated. It states that school was closed in 2010 which is not correct. School was never closed. You can also add positive news about the school. See also other schools to get ideas. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Martinus_University_Faculty_of_Medicine Regards, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Wikipedia:No legal threats

Hi, Sharmauiuc. It's obvious that you're new here and are experiencing a steep learning curve. The sockpuppet investigation will more than likely not be closed in your favor. Most sockpuppet blocks are of a temporary nature but your commitment to legal action can result in a block of indefinite time. I will await the outcome of the administrators involved in the sockpuppet investigation, but if you do not make an unambiguous retraction of the threat of legal action this account will be blocked indefinitely pending such retraction. I will be glad to address any concern you may have after you have made your retraction. Regards Tiderolls 05:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University external IP is being shared among multiple users. Please let me know how can I make unambiguous retraction?

Your question confuses me. Do you not understand "make an unambiguous retraction"? The number of users with access to the university IP is irrelevant. Also, please sign your posts (see Wikipedia:Signatures). Tiderolls 05:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the reference out for legal help. what else should I do? RegardsSharmauiuc (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the policy linked in this section header? Tiderolls 05:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously new and frustrated. So help me retracting for legal help. Sharmauiuc (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explain here, in your own words, your intent regarding legal action against this project. Tiderolls 06:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By project you mean the page or Wikipedia? Regardless, I have no intention of pursuing legal help. I apologize if it came as a threat as I am naive about wikipedia rules and etiuquettes. I would however request neutral editor for the page. Aqwfyj appears to be biased. Please consider my request. I would like to understand the arguments being made for alternate accounts. Sharmauiuc (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Wikipedia; an article is not an entity in the legal sense. Be that as it may, I find your statement satisfactory. All editors here are considered neutral until they act in a way that demonstrates that they are not neutral. Is your inquiry regarding alternat accounts referencing the sockpuppet investigation regarding this account? Tiderolls 06:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the gesture. The alternate account is in reference to sockpuppet investigation. Also, I felt that the editor Aqwfyj approach has been high handed. I questioned the source that was being referred as a source for the closing of the university in 2010. I pointed out that there is no date or time of closing is mentioned in the article and the article has been written in poor taste. Aqwfyj has been very active in removing anything I add but decided not to address the issue I raised. Aqwfyj also issued threat to block the account.Sharmauiuc (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, your article concerns. Almost all of your issues with the article content could have been addressed on the article's talk page. I see you have posted there, but you need to understand that when one's talk page posts do not follow convention it makes recognizing the posts very difficult for experienced editors. Talk page conventions in a nutshell: provide a concise, neutral section header; post new messages at the bottom of the page; sign your posts; notify other interested editors (even those editors whose views are different than yours) that you have posted to the article talk page and invite their comment. As regards your inquiry on alternate accounts; you may find a detailed explanation at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I will provide any clarification you require, but it's late where I live and I'm up early for work tomorrow. Post your concerns here and I will address them when I'm able. Regards Tiderolls 07:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very important. You need to read Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss and Wikipedia:Consensus. Editing the article as you have been, reverting without consensus or discussion, can jeopardize your editing privilege. Tiderolls 07:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharmauiuc. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (X! · talk) · @125 · 02:00, 4 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Shared IP Sharmauiuc (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:13, 7 March 2013 (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.

Right ... and all those accounts just happen to suddenly show up to edit the same article? All use the same grammar and sentence parsing? What about the WP:COI issues you also face? What about the failure to follow consensus? Obviously you have a half-dozen issues here, none of which are covered by a 2 word unblock request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]