User talk:RaghuVAcharya

==References==

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks published in the last 3-5 years. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Your recent editing history at Tuberculosis shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Yobol (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You should understand that editors are not taking issue with the significance of your late father's work. The issue is that we need a recent review, textbook, or other high-quality secondary source that supports an assertion of its ongoing significance. Otherwise it would be just our say-so that picked it out of all the other possible primary sources. Because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" many of our editors are pseudonymous. Accordingly an unsupported say-so is essentially worthless here, we cite everything that matters. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

PVN Acharya

Please see my comments on the talk p. of the above article, about whose accuracy I am considerably puzzled. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello RaghuVAcharya. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article PVN Acharya, 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 following the 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 Wikipedia: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. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:19, 2 February 2012 (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 ( ~~~~ ) 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) 21:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

the problem-

I'm sorry I need to be blunt about it, but I need to think primarily of the quality of the encyclopedia, not your understandable feeling for your father. He was not the first to work on irreversible dna damage: . There are many much earlier references to irreversible DNA damage going back to the early 50s, and his work was published only as conference abstracts. I also see no evidence that the work on mycobacterial lipids was important: The CRASP paper has only been cited 22 times further and the others apparently not at all. That's not enough to come anywhere near meeting our criteria at WP:PROF. Nor do I see any evidence for the books: they are not in worldcat, so they are in no US academic library--do you have any publication details, like the name of the publisher and the number of pages?

It is very hard to be objective about oneself, and even harder about one's parents. My apologies, but in thinking of your own interests & his memory, I suggest the least embarrassing course is to ask for deletion of the article yourself: it can be done just by placing at the top a line reading : {{db-author}}, and it will be quickly deleted. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm replying here, as less embarrassing for you than my talk p. You said:

DGG:

Please heed you own advice:

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

Sorry to be blunt, but your comments are embarrasingly (to you) patronizing and you keep referring to "Irreversible" when it's "Irreparable." They may be one in the same to you but, I don't think you know all of the details of this area of science.

As far as his two books, please refer to the US Copyright website. My question to you is: what do you stand to gain by trolling about wikipedia and advocating the deletion of legitimate contributions by for example, a Indian Born HINDU scientist? We need to know what exactly you're intentions are. We're the ones getting tappped, btw.(RaghuVAcharya (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

OK, I'm referring this to a community decision at AfD. I've tried to help, but I cannot help those who do not listen. Not that authority matters here, but just the documentable facts of publication and citation, Irreversible DNA damage is DNA damage that can not be repaired by the various repair enzymes, though I suppose there is a small semantic difference between the two concepts. I do have a doctorate in molecular biology from Berkeley, but I've been a librarian for the past 30 years, and when I was a biologist I worked on ribosomes, not DNA, so I cannot see why you think I am or was competition. I only rarely edit in biology here, since it is well taken care of. Rather, I work here in trying to get articles on scientists and other scholars, including from what we now call the global south, but your father in any case did his work in France and the US. As for Hindu, I've also worked on trying to get Hindu related topics such as schools and sages and temples and even religious concepts kept despite often minimal evidence, to provide wider coverage. I want to include as much as includable, but the standards are at WP:PROF, and we're an encyclopedia not a directory, and rely on WP:Verifiability. I did urge you not to make this personal. I'll wait a day in hope you think better of this. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

continuing,

from my talk p. you said:==

I'm afraid that you made it personal by suggesting that I delete my late father's article in order to avoid "embarrassing myself." I found your tone to be extremely condescending.

"Don't Bite the newbies.."

Further, there may have been theoretical articles on DNA Damage back in the fifties, but my father empiracally linked "Irreparable DNA Damage" to pre-mature aging and cancer, caused by Low Dose Ionizing radiation and environmental pollutants. Thank you and I am moving on. (RaghuVAcharya (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but 1. you identified him as your father previous to my listing it, otherwise of course I would never have done so. And I did so only on your page , which is less conspicuous than my own. 2. The article is a perfect illustration of why it is a very poor idea to write an article on yourself or your immediate relatives. Nobody has perspective. Nobody. 3. If your father did make the connection first, which I would need to check, he never published it outside of a conference abstract & presumably the 2 books he did register in the copyright office but are not in the Library of Congress nor any university library in the US, or Europe. (India does not have a checkable online catalog). 3. I've tied very hard to be as gentle as possible, but I have to admit that when i see persistent promotion that extend over more than one article, that's when I tend to be a little sharper than my average. If something or someone is non-notable, it is very difficult to explain why without it inevitably sounding a little on the sharp side--indeed, that's one of the reasons why it's not a good idea to write on oneself, one 's close relative, or anything in which one has very close personal involvement. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the PV Narasimh Acharya subject

DGG: You stated on my talk page "If your father did make the connection first, which I would need to check, he never published it outside of a conference abstract.."

Yes, it would have been advisable that you checked before you casted this long dark shadow of doubt over his research and reputation. It would be advisable not just in the case of my father but, for all of your Wiki exploits. As far as promotion is concerned, I see no problem that I would do this for him because he deserves some credit that he never received in his lifetime. Also, I maintain that he was "tapped" as it were (as I have been) so who knows how much went un credited to him.

As far as citations are concerned: I put his stuff on wikipedia years ago now, and a couple years prior to that, I had numerous conversations, via email and phone, with tenured scientists in this scientific area from the US, Canada and England. Two of these researchers actually apologized to me for not knowing about and not citing his 1971 article in Johns Hopkins. Furthermore, a former professor of mine at the Carlson School, U of M said stated "It happens...they (take an article and its ideas) slice and dice it so much to make it their own...it goes on." This sentiment was echoed by other researchers I have spoken with, or emailed.

I can tell you, when I spoke to these researchers, having sent them links or actual copies of articles, I would ask questions such as "was he wrong" and "was he actually on to something." So, as far as your comment "Nobody has perspective. Nobody." You are correct indeed...and please don't call me "Nobody." Take care and nice speaking with you. (RaghuVAcharya (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

the subject is closed. Your misunderstandings above speak for themselves, but for the record, Oral second-hand testimony is not used here, the Johns Hopkins conference paper was not a full publication, Nobody means "There is no person ", and is not a personal reference. And fwiw, you admit you are promoting him. See WP:MEMORIAL, Indeed, I see this posting as a continuing attempt at promotion. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The JH paper was presented at a Symposium in 1971 and published in 1972 and it is searchable on PUBMED. For what it's worth, he and and others like him are worth it. (RaghuVAcharya (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC))

Removal of tags and conflict of interest

I've raised your edits at WP:COIN. Note that biographies need independent sources, so that tag is warranted, and you have given no reason to remove the other tag. It's clearly disputed, for instance. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)