User talk:Omadacycline

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, Omadacycline, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Internet celebrity seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Introduction and Getting started
Contributing to Wikipedia
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Internet celebrity. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please stop making and reverting null edits to this article. Belbury (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Belbury (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Omadacycline (talk) 17:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Annh07 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Unbreakable Tatiana Suarez moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to The Unbreakable Tatiana Suarez. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Annh07 (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 103.58.74.97. ISP of bangaladesh provide internet connectivity to multiple users through the same bandwidth in shared internet access resulting in a reduced subscription fee but with a relatively lower connection speed. As a result, even though the monthly charges of the customers are reduced a lot, but ip changes continiously.. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span>}} Omadacycline (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

Hi, The State Cinema: A History - Tasmanian Times is not a valid citation or reference - see WP:CITATION or WP:RS - you might consider:-

"The State Cinema A History". Retrieved 11 March 2024.

as a formatted WP:RS which is acceptable. JarrahTree 10:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Omadacycline (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic language in your draft, "The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth"[edit]

Hi there! I noticed a draft you were working on, and noticed that the last section, "Reception," contained some unecyclopedic language, specifically these lines:

"it brought to light the shocking details of the case" (specifically the word "shocking")

"highlighting its gripping narrative against ethical and legal scrutiny" ("gripping")

"drawing viewers into the scandalous nature of the Sheena Bora case." ("scandalous" and "drawing viewers in") This sentence as a whole could be rewritten.

Just wanted to point you in the right direction, if you need any help or have questions, feel free to ask. vghfr, harbinger of chaos 03:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your input. I am a newbie .I will change those words. Keeping them neutral. Omadacycline (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! vghfr, harbinger of chaos 00:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. —Alalch E. 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, there are few sources there.

But as you can see- Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine or Cecil Textbook of Medicine

They are much more shorter, and less information. Meanwhile, In :Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine page, sources are all reputable, even some of them are 70 years back.

anyways, I will try to improve it. I guess shorten it would be better. can i ask you something, do anyone will help me to improve it? Omadacycline (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 103.58.74.99. My ISP do this, they change my ip or connection i guess. I am not an technical person,please do help.

Decline reason:

Confirmed proxy. See Template:Blocked p2p proxy for more details. Yamla (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (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.

March 2024[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft nominated for Speedy Deletion[edit]

Not sure why Twinkle didn't drop this, but: I've nominated The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth for Speedy Deletion based on this account being a sock puppet of a banned account as per the above from Belbury. OIM20 (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And these were also recommended for G5 CSD:

OIM20 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Devil On Trial[edit]

The article The Devil On Trial has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Well, I feel like a moron for having spent time researching to make this look better from its initial completely promotional tone, but I'd be remiss if I didn't nominate it for deletion because I don't think it passes WP:NFILM. Also, the page was created by a blocked account with numerous sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স. I didn't finish editing it, but I can do more work on it if the consensus says it's needed. While the film has reviews - I added several in my research to improve this - and it is a documentary about a well-known case, I don't know that it needs its own article. I'd recommend it under CSD / G5 if I hadn't made that impossible (I think) via the substantial edits I did to it myself.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OIM20 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock!! Omadacycline (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue over that. But the nomination to delete the above named page has been withdrawn, as noted on the nomination. OIM20 (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To better answer the question you asked in the deletion discussion about 'doing something wrong': in this instance, I misunderstood about WP:NFILM. So that was my error.

That said, I would recommend not using the AFI template on articles you create. That is a specific template that group uses, and is what caused me to start trying to improve the article. I realize that was likely your goal, but if you think your article isn't ready for publication, may I recommend using your sandbox to create articles instead? That way you can perfect the article before creating it.

We're all human and we all make mistakes, and in this case, I made one that I attempted to rectify by fixing the article as much as I could. @Mushy Yank also did a good bit of correction on the article as well, fixing the promotional language.

Since that is something that several of your articles have had in them, might I recommend reading WP:PROMO and WP:TONE to make sure that there aren't issues with your wording that will cause your work to be removed?

To clarify on the sock issue: if an administrator has determined that this is not a sock account, that is the only thing you need to be concerned about on that front. OIM20 (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I will do that from future. Draft articles takes so much time. For that reason i publish articles with AFI. And Other pages similar to my articles, are stub too. Many of the articles does not have good credible sources. but they worth having a page in wikipedia. btw, i will follow your advice. Omadacycline (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot of stubs on Wikipedia. And they generally have a note at the bottom that asks people to help improve them.

Though, if you think an article doesn't have credible sources, that is something you should attempt to rectify by providing credible ones. If you're not sure if something has been deemed not credible by Wikipedia standards, you can always check WP:RS. If you're talking about dead links, there are bots that work to try to fix that, and when those are not able to, they flag it, and then the entries get added to a list that human editors go over.

I realize that there are only so many hours in the day. We all run into that problem. But if the subject is worthy of an encyclopedic article, is it not worth it to do the work to provide verifiable sources? To prove its encyclopedic value?

But misusing the AFI template, which is employed on one article a week by that group which they have voted on to include in their rotation, isn't the best way to get your articles included. The have a process, and you can check out their group to find out more. OIM20 (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understood completely. I apologize for any inconvenience i have caused you.

For example, "snell's clinical anatomy by regions". It is textbook for many students throughout the world.

But I just found one credible source, Elsevier. Others are online bookshop. Now you can understand my side. Wikipedia also listed that book in medical textbook page.

Again i am sorry. I will follow the rules.I will try to learn from your given page's information. Omadacycline (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Devil On Trial for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Devil On Trial 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/The Devil On Trial until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

OIM20 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity - this nomination has been withdrawn. OIM20 (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]