User talk:Vashiva

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Vashiva, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! silly billy piggy 14:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion and adding non-notable trivia

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Email. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. VQuakr (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vashiva. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Email, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

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 following the 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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
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. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you blocking me??!

I've attempted to be kind, objective on this. But if you are ignorant and do not want to accept that I did in fact write the first EMAIL system in 1978, (infact I've given references to third-party sources, US Copyright office, news paper articles from then, and references to the Westinghouse Science Committee. None of these are SELF-Promotional. Say if you had not referenced Thomas Alva Edison for creating the light bulb, and 20 years have passed by, and then he shows you evidence. Likely, your initial reaction, "consensus" will be NOT to believe him and use your "rules" to block him. The reality is that my creation of EMAIL, its copyright, etc. was been hidden to the public, as I was not at MIT then, but working at a state university called UMDNJ, which I have no affiliation.

None of what I've written is self-promotional. It is the truth. If I say, in 1982, I, V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai received the first US Copyright for EMAIL, is that self-promotional?

Perhaps, if I were to write, I am a faculty member at MIT, have four degrees from there, a Fulbright, etc., then you will listen to this with greater credibility?

I am appalled by this and expect a response, and clear description on the last post of what is untruthful, non-notable, and promotional. I want answers. Vashiva (talk)

This might come across as strange, but Wikipedia is not so much interested in "the truth", but what is verifiable. Quoting from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". You are a primary source, with a direct conflict of interest in adding the material you've been attempting to add to Email. This is highly problematic. As a new editor to Wikipedia, it's understandable that this wouldn't make sense at first. Further, it's understandable that you do not, as yet, understand the expected editing behaviors and norms we have here. Engaging in an edit war in an attempt to force you version of an article is completely unacceptable here, and will almost always result in a block of editing privileges, as has happened with you here. Saying things like "I'm not relenting on this" (edit summary) is not collaborative editing. The best way to work through this is to discuss the additions at the article's talk page. That discussion has already started at Talk:Email#new_front_material:_Shiva.2FEMAIL. When your block expires, please contribute to that section, providing verifiable secondary sources to buttress your argument for inclusion. I've given you a lot of links in this response to you. Please take the time to read them. If you have more questions, please post them here. Myself or another person will respond. You can also use Template:Help me to attract responses to your questions. Have a great day, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EMAIL IS NOT = to ELECTRONIC MESSAGING, EMAIL IS a subset of ELECTRONIC MESSAGING. Response to Hammersmith

Dear Hammersmith,

Here is the problem with the first paragraph of email's definition. EMAIL is being confused with electronic/digital messaging. Just like MS WORD, ADOBE PHOTOSHOP, QUICKBOOKS, and nearly ever end-user application requires an Operating System. EMAIL, TWITTER, CHAT, IM are all very specific forms of electronic messaging. This clarity is important --- it doesn't exist because, few are truly aware of the history of EMAIL, since the definition of "email" is linked to electronic messaging, not EMAIL.

Why do I say this?

EMAIL is not electronic messaging. It may be a subset or a type of electronic messaging. EMAIL is derived from the form of MAIL that was sent in inter- and intra-office MAIL. The electronic version of that is MAIL. EMAIL, specifically, refers to a electronic message that has the "To:", From:, Subject, Date: Cc, Bcc fields. TWITTER is not electronic messaging. It to is a subset, but it has specific features: Tweets, @mentions, RT's, etc. IM similarly has other such features. All are types of electronic messaging, but one cannot say they are all "email".

EMAIL is very specific. So the early history here needs to be clear, scientific and cleaned up.

I am here to help you with this, since I was in the middle of its development. Yes, I may have only been 14-years old, but that age should not disqualify me from presenting the facts.

Here are sources: 1. In 1978, I coined the EMAIL --- I can show you the actual software code which is on tape and on printed paper from then---- how do we source it? Perhaps it should go into the Smithsonian or a Museum and it will be believed. 2. In 1980, a article appeared in the West Essex Tribune 3. In 1981, the Westinghouse Science Awards (now the Intel Science Awards) issued a notice 4. In 1982, after 1 year the US copyright office issued the FIRST Copyright for EMAIL. Here EMAIL is defined as a digital message with those attributes specifically to, from, subject, cc, bcc and inboxes, outboxes, etc. Again, I was the first to specify this. 5. The RFC protocol for these fields came after that Copyright.

I do not want to be argumentative; however, it feels like "consensus" here is blind to the facts.

If I am wrong here in anyway, kindly let me know. if you want me to present the sources in a way that will support my thesis, let me know.

I think we should have a separate definition of electronic messaging, one for EMAIL, TWITTER, CHAT, IM, etc. They are like MSWORD, ADOBE are to an OS/

Warm regards, Vashiva (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not really interested in the subject matter. I posted here on your talk page to help you become more acquainted with editing norms here. Once your block has expired, you can make your case on the article's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vashiva, here are three things you can do after your block expires to help your voice be heard:

Use the article talk page; do not edit war.
Cite reliable, secondary sources to back up your statements. Drawing from your experience and citing copyrights are less likely to be convincing.
Be concise, and avoid writing in all capital letters.

Regards! VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]