User talk:Harshmellow717

Welcome!

Hello, Harshmellow717, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Writing and sourcing about polyphenols and human effects

Greetings, Harshmellow717. Your scientific interests, expertise, and willingness to contribute to topics of molecular biology and medicine will be valuable to Wikipedia, but I'd like to give you some context on why I objected to your edits on Polyphenol here, and Health effects of phenols and polyphenols here. My edit/revert summaries give brief explanations, and I offered an additional review on this talk page which is self-explanatory with links to medical topic guidelines relevant to content and sources about polyphenols and health. I hope this is understandable to you, and invite further discussion here on your page, if you wish.

A few specifics:

This edit contained content and sources from preliminary lab research, which is many-years distant from an understanding of inflammation effects in vivo or more generally in human diseases and health. Think of your audience as freshman biology students wanting an introduction to potential disease mechanisms. Such detailed primary research and sources would be alien to them, and defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia, as explained in WP:MEDREV ("A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable, and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content.") and WP:MEDANIMAL ("in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings"). Also, in terms of summarizing evidence for the reader, such studies are the lowest level shown in WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid, and are avoided as primary sources inapplicable to a health topic. I saw your new article stub on DHCA, and it falls into this category of using primary, unconfirmed research to interpret in vivo effects related to health ("effective in promoting resilience against stress by modulating brain synaptic plasticity and peripheral inflammation."). Please be careful.
In one reverted edit, I mentioned the journal Nutrients, PMID 30400131, which is considered predatory (i.e., the authors actually are recruited to pay for a paper to be published, and editorial standards are weak or absent), as discussed at WP:CITEWATCH (see Disclaimer). MDPI and Hindawi Publishing Corporation have a high number of suspect publications, so are typically avoided by the WP medical community.
Two guidelines may be useful to you: WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDHOW.

Good luck. --Zefr (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Dihydrocaffeic acid you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 01:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an article open defecation

Hi there. I would like to request your help in editing this article Open defecation. There are misrepresented and biased article posts done by people with anti-indian sentiments and i have appallingly found myself banned. I am not fond of editing here so i request if you could help on this issue. I refer to the section on "India and Hinduism". Thanks --Hari147 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

@Harshmellow717: I did not ignore the consensus. I provided nearly 4 paragraphs addressing each concern and am not sure if counter discussion was posted any where. I outline the source validity and each concern raised. What additional is required? I revised it based on your suggestions. It is down to 1 sentence. Please advise what you think is still not addressed. Feel free to advise on proper use of sandbox/talk. I am new. I posted on my talk page as well. No bad intent is intended. I am new and genuinely learning the wikipedia interface and UI.

Hello @Kbhatt22: Please see my response on your talk page it addresses your questions. Harshmellow717 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

If you do this[1] you can use the same ref multiple times more easily. Happy editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~== Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==~~

~~There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==~~

~~136.2.16.181 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~== Hey Vandal ==~~

Hello, I'm 136.2.16.180. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to [[:Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha]] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please stop policing all Swaminarayan and BAPS articles. You vandalize my edits again and I will request for you to be blocked. BAPS is a vimuhk sanstha and broke off from Swaminarayan's family. Get over it. 136.2.16.180 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@136.2.16.180 You seem to have mistaken me for someone else. I have not interacted with you or your edits prior to this correspondence. I am deeply offended by this unwarranted personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks and maintain civility when interacting with other users. Please act in accordance with Wikipedia:NPA and Wikipedia:Civility. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 136.2.16.180, I have restored my original edit on the BAPS article and started a discussion on the article talk page. In reviewing your reference, I feel that the previous version implies that Shastriji Maharaj left the Swaminarayan Sampradaya which is not what is stated by the cited source (WP:OR). Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::I am helping out and there are more sources added. Do not revert the article again. (User talk:Harshmellow717) 200.52.183.195 (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments by blocked sock puppet have been crossed out as per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lekh

Hi Harshmellow717. Would you mind if I add the info on the lekh, from User:Harshmellow717/sandbox the , to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page? I find it quite claryfying. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC) No patience; I already used some of it; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vadtal talk

Hi!!. Hope all is well. I have a feeling our discussion around Vadtal is about to get hijacked so was wondering if you were fine with me running my proposal by you here so you and I can review it before putting it out there. We were the only ones really talking about this topic and we both seemed to agree. I posted a follow-up about how much detail and history comes up around that dispute and I think we should try to capture it and both sides of it respectfully in short sentence or two. Here is what I was thinking:

There is currently an active case regarding the Vadtal Gadi centered around a factional dispute between Dev paksh and Acharya paksh. Gujarat high court has stayed the order removing Ajendraprsadji Maharaj until a final verdict is reached. He is restrained from enjoying the rights of acharya during the proceedings. Dev paksh has appointed Rakeshprasad to act as their Acharya. Acharya paksh recognizes Ajendraprasad as its current acharya.

I think this is short and direct. I am trying to keep that section short as it is intended to guide readers to the respective branch pages and not become lengthy. I think this sums up the dispute, the latest order, and the two sides without being wordy. Thanks again! Kbhatt22 (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) just responded on the article talk page (see diff). Missed your post here. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I will move this proposal there. I figured it might be easier to discuss here and then take it there with all the other conversations taking place. Ill respond over there. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query about other accounts you might know

Hi there, Harshmellow717. I'm Kevin, and I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia, which means it's my job to try to sort out when confusing situations come up. As part of a current matter, I need to ask you whether you recognize any of the following users from outside of Wikipedia: Moksha88, Apollo1203, Skubydoo, Hexcodes, Golfer1223. In other words, are these your accounts? If not, are they the accounts of friends of yours, or colleagues, or others you might know for non-Wikipedia reasons, or someone who taught you to edit Wikipedia? This is important because if you do know these people in real life, there are certain disclosures you have to make on Wikipedia and some rules that apply differently, but don't worry – if you answer to the best of your knowledge, I can help you make those disclosures. You can answer the question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88, or you can do so here and ping me. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L235 (talk · contribs), I responded to your query on the SPI page. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Moksha88 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L235 (talk · contribs),

From your verdict on the SPI it appears that I was blocked for sockpuppetry based solely on behavioral evidence. Reading your comments to some other editors involved in the SPI, a contributing factor for the sockpuppetry block was “linguistic similarities”. Was this the case for me as well? Without further clarity, I am not sure how I can even go about constructing an appeal. So, any further clarity you can provide regarding the reasons for the block will be greatly appreciated and will help me understand what exact evidence I must provide in my appeal. Thanks for your time and patience. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harshmellow717, thank you for your message. Your block did indeed involve linguistic and behavioral similarities. You can see the SPI page for more information. Like in many behavioral investigations, there is often not a single "but-for" deciding factor. I am not going to publicly list the most probative factors; I'll submit any relevant analysis directly to a reviewing administrator if necessary. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]