User talk:Omairosmani

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Omairosmani. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Diclofenac, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Editwarring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Diclofenac; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

December 2018
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is your consistent use of your own website. Do you see that other editors have asked you not to do that,and it is disruptive? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Omair
Dear Bru, I know that and I was not aware of the guidelines. However, Now that the part of my article was taken in Wikipedia diclofenac but not the reference. Why is that? On the ethical grounds is it not fair to include the reference. I am not going to argue on this. I would be obliged if you include the reference of my website for the part taken from my website. If you think you would include the part of my article but not the reference. I cannot argue on this. It is what it is. Regards. Omairosmani (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing unfair about other editors changing what you add here. That is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works. When you edit, there is even this notice: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone", and this one: "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution". Once you add something, it belongs to everyone to use or not (technically you still hold copyright, but can no longer restrict use when attributed). ☆ Bri (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Omair
In a nutshell what you want to say is you can take a part of the information from any source but will not give the exact reference of the source. Thanks for the information.Omairosmani (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well sort of. Usually facts that aren't plain "sky is blue" things can be challenged, there's even the citation needed tag for this. And of course talkpage discussion which is the best way to address content issues that have not reached consensus. But adding a link to a thing you are connected to -- either financially or academically (which I see a lot) -- is not OK here. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, Quite Funny. Thanks for your time. Nice talking to you Mr. BRI. Regards.