User talk:Bhaskarmv

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Vsmith (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did that. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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) 08:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bhaskarmv. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 ensuring their edits are verified by 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 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.  Velella  Velella Talk 09:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest. My edits present a major new invention and scientific discovery. This is knowledge that should be available on Wikipedia. Unfortunately no scientist has written papers about this, so we are not able to give citations.

In fact many of the papers published and knowledge posted on wikipedia on this subject - Algal blooms, Fish Kills, Dead Zones / Hypoxia, Diatoms, etc., is erroneous. I will be editing these over the next few days.

--Bhaskarmv (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
In your discussion as Fish kill you included the phrase "Our product makes growing Diatoms possible in any pond or lake.". This clearly indicates a major conflict of interest.  Velella  Velella Talk 09:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited this comment.

--Bhaskarmv (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User page
Can you please also remove the promotional material from your user page. Promotional material is not permitted on a user page. Please seeWP:UP for confirmation. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the User page.

--Bhaskarmv (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks . That is much better.  Velella  Velella Talk 08:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Assistance
I appreciate that you are having a tough time on Wikipedia at present, but I and many other editors are both willing and able to help. I am unsure what your background is but my guess is that it isn't freshwater or marine ecology. I also understand that you have a product which you sincerely believe is helpful in mitigating blooms of green and blue-green algae. However, Wikipedia does not exist to promote companies or their products and generally only includes material that can be verified by good quality reliable and uninvolved sources (reputable newspapers, peer reviewed scientific journals, graduate level text books etc.) Quite a lot of what you have written is directly contradicted by well established ecological research and publications - and that includes several of your edits that I have left untouched to try and avoid getting into a confrontation with you but which will have to be edited soon to bring them into line with the published evidence. Please don't imagine that I or any other editor is maligning your product - we aren't - but mentioning such a product is contrary to Wikipedia policies unless it can be demonstrated to be notable, and promoting is will always be contrary to policies. I would be happy to work with you to improve some of the articles that you have edited, but it will have to be in adding value and reputable information in an appropriate way. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 08:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I can understand your ignorance, I have faced similar situations with many people in the past few years. They have all accepted my view finally. The resistance to new concepts is quite severe, even after 100s of years of inventions and discoveries.

Unfortunately a lot of published data is incomplete or erroneous and has to be changed in view of the development of our product and solution.

I can email you details of discussions with and confirmations from top scientists, if you give me your email id.

Your attitude is attributing motives to me is wrong.

This is product has been demonstrated for the past 7 years.

The language of my posts can always be edited to improve them, there is no problem with this as long as the science is not contested.

--Bhaskarmv (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Um...? What ignorance would that be ? Ignorant of the ineffectiveness of bulldozing tactics perhaps? For the record, I first observed and drew Diatoms in 1960, and later graduated and completed my post graduate qualifications in Hydrobiology and have been working in the regulatory arm of the aquatic environment for 40 years and have, in my time, employed teams of freshwater and marine biologists.  I guess this makes me as ignorant of Diatoms as anyone else in that I can only add facts which are supported by reliable and robust references without intermingled speculative or promotional statements. The only thing that bulldozing does is to get the editor blocked. I offered an olive branch above and your response was to call me ignorant. How much more help and support are you expecting now ?  Velella  Velella Talk  19:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In the 50 years you have been working on Diatoms, have you ever used Nano Silica to grow them? Have you ever caused a bloom of Diatoms in a 100 acre lake? Have you increased the dissolved oxygen level of a large lake using Diatoms? At present people are only 'culturing' diatoms in small quantity of water. Few people are talking of using Diatoms, though this was suggested about 90 years ago. If you wish to assist, stop deleting my contributions and start discussing them. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversial edits
Please feel free to add content. But, if it's reverted as controversial for some reason, please observe BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This means discuss its inclusion at the talk page if reverted, and get consensus there before restoring the content. Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if people discuss before deleting my contributions and stop attributing motives. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Inspecting your edits
Please inspect your edits after you click save.

See: and

References come after punctuation. A space comes before the next sentence. No space after punctuation and before reference, etc. Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Noted. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, please inspect your edits. See this and apply what I wrote above to it. Also, you seem to capitalize lots of words that shouldn't be capitalized, such as "shrimp", "nitrogen", and "phosphorus". Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please read WP:3rr and resolve disputes on article talk pages rather than continuing to revert as you have been doing on diatom. Vsmith (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that my contribution should not be deleted without discussion. They are based on sound science and are fully supported by good sources. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Diatom. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial 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.  Neil N   talk to me  08:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

My contributions are based on sound science that is over 100 years old. So I will not accept arbitrary deletion of entire sections. If you have any contrary views on specifics please use the Talk page to discuss them, do not delete the entire section I post.

--Bhaskarmv (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've got three editors reverting you. It's up to you to work on the talk page before adding the material. -- Neil N   talk to me  03:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So? The rest of the Diatom page only has theoretical discussion, the real life situation has to be mentioned. Increase or decline in Diatoms, their uses, etc. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —  The   Earwig   (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation
When I search this string: "the inter-relation of these remarkable plants with other forms of aquatic life had been prominent in the minds of investigators", part of this edit, google shows almost an exact match at http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1928919. This is a copyright violation. Please rewrite it and check for any other copy paste and rewrite in your own words. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This paper is published in 1921. The journal does not indicate any copyright. My understanding is that there is no copyright on this. I have used quotes and indicated the source. I feel very strongly that Diatoms have been neglected for past 90 years and would like to leave the quote as it is to emphasize the neglect. That nothing has changed in the past 90 years. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are right. I didn't realize it was a quote. Pardon me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation and formatting
I see you are continuing to make edits before looking after the copyright violation and formatting issues. Please look after those matters first. If you continue to make other edits instead, these faulty contributions are liable to be reverted. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not able to sort out some of the formatting issues. There is no copyright violation. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No copyright vio, understood. As for formatting issues, I'm sure you are able to use a lower case "D" when you type diatom. Also, it's not very difficult to put references after punctuation, and without leaving a space after the full stop. Just try your best. That's all we ask. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Commercial promotion
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Iron fertilization. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Epipelagic (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no advertisement.
 * The invention referred to is a revolutionary invention. It proves that diatoms can consume nano silica, in nature they only consume silicic acid (dissolved silica). This product causes diatoms to grow in large waterbodies. This is an unique concept and there is no other technology that can do this. This invention is to water and aquaculture, what urea is to land and agriculture. I am afraid all of you are being superficial. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Bhaskarmv, please stand back and look at what you are doing. You cannot just barge in and bulldoze like this. You have a clear commercial interest in some product you want to promote. That puts you in a position where you must be particularly careful to make sure that what you offer here is encyclopedic, and not commercial. You cannot use Wikipedia as a commercial arm for marketing the products you have developed. I think you have helpful insights to offer. But you must give up on the idea that you can promote your products here. If you are unable to make this transition, then you are liable to be blocked. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have to stand back and understand if I am referring to an invention or a product. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia is the wrong place to promote an invention or product. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing arm for various commercial interests. You have undone the reversion I made of your commercial promotion. This means that you are now starting to editwar. I invite you to undo your reversion, and stop being so obstinate. Ask yourself what you are are really here for. If it is just to promote your product then it is a lost cause. If you would also like to contribute useful information in these areas, then you could became a respected contributor. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not 'promoting' an invention. I am mentioning it in a suitable manner, on iron fertilization page it is briefly mentioned in the conclusion and future research para. The point is that this may be a better way to deliver iron in oceans, than iron sulfate or hematite ore used in the 13 iron fertilization experiments. Please see the talk page of iron fertilization, there is a query about which type of iron is to be used. This invention is perhaps the answer.

Have you read about this invention? Do you understand the science behind it? Have you confirmed if it works or not?

Why are you deleting the entry before discussing. Let us first discuss it, so that I have a chance to convince you.

Many wiki entries mention many technologies, products, even companies, this is not advertisement, just information that is of interest to all. Unfortunately, I have been thorough similar discussions on all other forums - google groups, Linkedin, etc. and understand that bulldosing is the only way. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't read about your invention, I don't necessarily understand the science behind it, and I most certainly haven't confirmed whether it works or not. Your promotion warrants no discussion before it is deleted. To repeat for the third time, Wikipedia is not here to promote products such as yours. If you persist in ignoring this point, and continue to think that bulldozing is the way to go, then you will be blocked. Please read the references you have been given to Wikipedia policies and guidelines above, and decide whether you want to contribute constructively here in other ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I should have acknowledged your point that Wikipedia (not "wiki") mentions "many technologies, products, even companies". That is correct, but these are notable products and companies for which there are third party reliable sources. When you can establish that your product has got to that stage, then it can have an article dedicated to it. In the meantime, you are just irritating other editors by trying to force your product down their throats. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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 Diatom, you may be blocked from editing.  Neil N   talk to me  13:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The invention is supported by third party confirmation, links to this have been posted. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring (again)
Your recent editing history at Diatom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mikenorton (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My contributions are based on pure science and are well sourced. Please find any errors in the science if you can and post them on the talk page. Don't indulge in theoretical debates about Wiki policy. My contributions fully comply with all these. My User page fully discloses my interests, unlike your page and the pages of others who are repeatedly deleting my contributions, the data is well supported by sources, some almost 100 years old and unchallenged. The invention I am writing about is a genuine invention and has to be mentioned on Wikipedia. I am an expert on diatoms and have been working with them for many years and confirm everything posted based on my personal experience, in addition to the sources posted.

If you have any issues with my contributions please discuss them on the talk page, do not just revert them. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Your future at Wikipedia
You really should not restore the content without reaching consensus first at the talk page. Simply restoring the content again and again won't work. It will be removed again and again. Plus, what you are doing will be considered edit warring. It will likely result in you being blocked from editing. I know you don't want that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

3rr report filed
I have reported your edit warring to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as you are in violation of WP:3rr on iron fertilization, see here. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bhaskarmv, you have already broken the WP:Three revert rule at the article on Iron fertilization. You may respond at WP:AN3. If you won't agree to stop reverting you will most likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, 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. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Bhaskarmv for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Block
I have extended your block given the recent socking issue: it is now of indefinite length. It is clear from your edits, your comments, and especially the many comments by other editors that you are not here to build an encyclopedia according to the project's rules and guidelines. You have been edit-warring, promoting, editing in a non-neutral manner, and now socking: I see no reason to let you return to the behavior you continued under a different account immediately after your account was blocked. Drmies (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nualgi concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nualgi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Nualgi


Hello Bhaskarmv. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Nualgi.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)