User talk:Drchris65

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Drchris65, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Drchris65, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cahk (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Drchris65[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Drchris65 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some of your recent citations[edit]

I'm don't see mythology.net and biologydictionary.net meeting our reliable sourcing standards. I can't find who their authors or editorial board really are, which is probably step number one in terms of verifiability.

I notice that almost all of your edits have been to link to biologydictionary.net, often with only nominal information added, which raises concerns that you are WP:REFSPAMing it, which would raise further concerns that you have a conflict of interest with the site.

So, I strongly recommend that you stop citing either site (or any other site owned by the parent company of those two obviously related sites). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to cite sources for information. That's one other problem I've noticed with your edits, when you aren't only nominally citing a source for minimal information, you are adding information with no source. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

If I catch you adding any more WP:REFSPAM to mythology.net or biologydictionary.net (which are obviously owned by the same people), you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk)

I've just finished removing 34 citations to biologydictionary.net. You only have 67 edits to articles, which means that half of your edits have been to link to that site. The other half didn't have sources. That's a serious problem, especially since it's clear you know how to cite sources

I've found three IP addresses (from the same location in Pakistan) that were focused on WP:REFSPAMing mythology.net, as you were with biology.net. It's enough to make me wonder if your (now deleted) user page was a cover story. That you fail to respond to any messages further raises this concern, as someone with 35 years of writing experience (especially at Harvard) would know how to engage in basic communication.

If you do not respond to this message, there will be little alternative but for me to conclude that you were hired to promote biologydictionary.net and mythology.net, and tried to steal someone's identity to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then...[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]