Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jayabalan.joseph: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:59, 17 April 2017 editJayabalan.joseph (talk | contribs)604 edits You're confusing the publisher (you) with the seller (Amazon). Amazon would sell my weekly grocery lists if I published them. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)← Previous edit Revision as of 03:00, 17 April 2017 edit undoCullen328 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,834 edits replyYou're confusing the publisher (you) with the seller (Amazon). Amazon would sell my weekly grocery lists if I published them. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Next edit →
Line 164: Line 164:


You have Successfully publicized your ignorance (foolishness) in the Teahouse...! You have Successfully publicized your ignorance (foolishness) in the Teahouse...!

:Please cease your unwarranted personal attacks on {{u|NeilN}} and other editors. Continuing that disruptive behavior will lead to a longer block. ] ] 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:00, 17 April 2017

This is Jayabalan.joseph's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

i don't care about anything else anymore , they re more smart and more experience than me, they re powerfull, and not good for me, i just need help to teach me how to behave to save and more money only180.245.83.217 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


[REDACTED] Hello! Jayabalan.joseph, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for Reviews....

Hello all,

          I have made a wiki draft on 'Species Branding': https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis   ...This wiki could help find solution to the long running "Species Problem" of Biology... I will be happy to have Experts in the field Review my Draft...

Thank you, Joseph J PhD. Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Hybrid (biology)/GA1

Jayabalan.joseph, you are a very new editor at Misplaced Pages, and I noticed that the draft article you've been working on has not yet met the standards at Articles for Creation. Today, you opened a Good Article review for Hybrid (biology). Given that the Good Article process is for articles that meet specific criteria that are much more rigorous than those for draft articles, I don't see how you could yet have the understanding and experience to tackle a Good Article review. In addition, the review page you created contains all sorts of odd links that do not belong.

My suggestion is that until you have gained a great deal more experience at Misplaced Pages, especially with regard to the standards for articles, that you not attempt any further GA reviews; I would recommend at least a few months and a thousand edits as a minimum, but even better, that one of your own articles be reviewed at GAN once you've revised it to meet the GA criteria.

I will be arranging to have the GA review that you opened deleted, given its issues and your inexperience. I think this is the best thing to do for everyone involved, both yourself and the article's nominator. Thank you for your understanding. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, BlueMoonset. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Further to what the bot says, if you're trying to add something to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biology, please (please) don't add multiple sections to all manner of talk pages, it really isn't at all appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Editors...

I am very thankful to everyone who have responded to my request and have contributed valuble edits to the draft.

Best regards, Joseph. 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon

Many thanks Robert McClenon for your valuble comments and suggestions. I had made changes to the Summary just as you had suggested.

>> Focus both on what other biologists, not the originator of the theory, have commented on the plausibility of the theory, and on what other biologists have said about the impact of the theory, if true.

So far I have heared No negative comments or opposition to the hypothesis from others. I would be very happy to hear from other biologist about their views and comments on the hypothesis.

It's my feeling that since this hypothesis deals with a bit complex soultion as against an easy solution; other scientists may not so openly voice comments. Surprisingly I have received just few feed backs, as against the thousands of copies of my books that were downloaded. I also see (on amazon kdp) that many readers finish reading my books till the end. But it could be that the problem (species problem) and its solution (Species Branding hypothesis); are too complex (cognitively demanding) for most readers to arrive with a their personal opinions.

I hope I would recieve more feed backs if the wiki-draft gets published. Thank you again, Joseph

PS: The articles below could give you some sense of the cognitive Complexity of the Species Problem: http://cogprints.org/9956/1/Bartlett_The%20Species%20Problem%20and%20Its%20Logic.pdf http://www.reed.edu/biology/professors/srenn/pages/teaching/2007_syllabus/2007_readings/a4_Hey_2001.pdf


Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis

Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Species Branding Hypothesis (April 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Exemplo347 was: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Misplaced Pages requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Misplaced Pages at this time. The comment the reviewer left was: Independent, reliable sources are needed that specifically discuss this hypothesis in detail Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis, you may be blocked from editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The Teahouse

Hello Jayabalan.joseph,

Your Teahouse question has been answered at great length and in great detail by several highly experienced editors, who all agree that your hypothesis is not now notable as Misplaced Pages defines notability and is therefore not eligible for a Misplaced Pages article at this time. Continuing to argue about the matter after this has been explained to you repeatedly is approaching the realm of disruptive editing. Please stop now. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am reinforcing what Cullen328. Your question has been asked and answered. Failure to drop the stick will result in a block. --NeilN 02:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case it would n't be a failure from my side, but on Your side to defend your views... (& Obviously a clear failure to your community as a whole)

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN 02:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


>>I am reinforcing what Cullen328. Your question has been asked and answered. Failure to drop the stick will result in a block. --NeilN talk to me 02:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

>>In that case it would n't be a failure from my side, but on Your side to defend your views... (& Obviously a clear failure to your community as a whole)


You clearly Failed yourself and your community...

Happy Easter NeilN...!

You're confusing the publisher (you) with the seller (Amazon). Amazon would sell my weekly grocery lists if I published them. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Teahouse#


>>You're confusing the publisher (you) with the seller (Amazon). Amazon would sell my weekly grocery lists if I published them. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Amazon Books" does not publish your Grocery list NeilN (may be you could try if wish to)...

You have Successfully publicized your ignorance (foolishness) in the Teahouse...!

Please cease your unwarranted personal attacks on NeilN and other editors. Continuing that disruptive behavior will lead to a longer block. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Jayabalan.joseph: Difference between revisions Add topic