User talk:182.54.236.190

April 2021
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the message. First of all let us clearly define a neuroscientist: A neuroscientist (or neurobiologist) is a scientist who has specialised knowledge in the field of neuroscience, the branch of biology. This person studied electrical engineering and she cannot be considered as a neuroscientist. Please do not add unreal titles to the people. We added full reference for any new sentences. We beleive in clarification of the current situation about the recrutments of new professors in Switzerland and we are trying to clearly and truthfully provide all information to the readers. Please do not remove the critical information that are clearly cited. Number of citation in our field is very important and we are trying to make a transparent scientific enviroment. Everyone should be able to receive the information about the number of citation of a professor at the time of his/her recrument and how much self-citated references they have. The sentence about the self-citation was cited clearly. 20 out of 26 references were self-citation and unfortunately this is becoming a trend to increase the number of citation. If you believe in transparent information you should not eliminate such critical information.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have read your reply here, and on my user talk page. Believe me, I hear you, about the article having a serious problem with respect to making her sound like she is at a more advanced stage of her career than is actually the case. And I intend to put the entire article up for deletion in the near future. But there are right ways and wrong ways to go about these things on Wikipedia. First of, all, you need to stop reverting me, as the second warning message just above indicates. Secondly, our WP:BLP policy is a very serious one, and it does not allow for potentially defamatory information about any living person in our articles. And saying that her publications are bad in any way is not permitted. You sound like someone who understands how academic science works, and that's good, so I hope that you will understand what I am saying and take it to heart. But please understand that you can be blocked from editing if you disregard this advice. And please be patient for the article deletion process to get under way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, I'm Robertsky. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Priyamaanavale, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Deva (1995 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Thedefender35. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chandralekha (1995 film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.   Tdhello 18:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Coimbatore Mappillai. – robertsky (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Badri (2001 film). – robertsky (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)