User talk:Rijavano99

Chandrasekhara's Technique on Microbiology Techniques

Are you sure this information is correct? The title is not something I would expect to see such a technique called, and the professor whose article you link is a professor of literature, not microbiology. I could find nothing on the internet about "Chandrasekhara's Technique" (except your article), nor anything connecting Chandrasekhara and Löffler's medium. Unfortunately, I cannot read your referenced sources either. Can you clear any of this up? Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In India, naming conventions of science techniques dictate the need to partake in pluralist spelling practises (as seen in Bengali or Hindi). So if this was in the U.S.A, we could say Chandrasekhara's Technique (Microbiology), and if Wikipedia must name the article this, then that is okay. The professor is also a scientist, and writes scientific literature too. Also, the books used are print books, a practise I see on Wikipedia often. --Rijavano99 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article as a hoax. It was copied from Löffler's medium. If you make any more hoax edits, you will be blocked indefinitely without any further warning. Fences&Windows 01:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not upload videos to Wikimedia Commons if they do not have a free license and do not link to copyright violations from Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 01:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rijavano99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not actually done anything wrong. Rijavano99 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not even begin to address the problems with your editing, namely hoaxing and copyright violations. You say you didn't I see you did. Please elaborate. Max Semenik (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rijavano99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not realise that my articles were a 'hoax'. I only had good intentions and my efforts were honest. I actually had permission to post the videos, but the legal marks were not removable. Now I know my mistake and I am enlightened. I will now contribute to Wikipedia guidelines if you unblock me. I am sorry. Please unblock me. Rijavano99 (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Claiming that you did not know that Chandrasekhara's Technique on Microbiology Techniques was a hoax is not believable, as it is blatantly clear that you simply copied another article and changed the name. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.