User talk:Jayabalan.joseph

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)[reply]

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Jayabalan.joseph/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello all,

          I have made a wiki draft on 'Species Branding': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

Jayabalan.joseph, you are a very new editor at Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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

Jayabalan.joseph, I have read most of this to-and-fro, and have formed the opinion that you wish to increase the sales of your book. Have you yet modified your Author Page on Amazon? That might be more worthwhile than battling the editors of Wikipedia. Promotion never triumphs.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quisqualis I Don't believe that Personal promotion would be a good thing to do... that is one of the reasons why I still don't have an Author page on Amazon... But I believe in Promotion of a Concept which stands for a Good cause... In my case the concept being the Species Branding Hypothesis and the good cause is to bridge the existing gap between the dichotomies of Science and Religion... (Also I am sure that I am not doing pseudoscience, you could cross verify if you would get to read my books that are free on Research Gate)

BlueMoonset Just to bring to your attention (& Robert McClenon, Cordless Larry, Exemplo347 and others)... I did NOT request ANY review for "Good Article review for Hybrid (biology)" and Certainly NOT Today... I am almost certain that some kind of Vandalism Is happening to my account... Some days ago I received review for a my draft from Exemplo347, which I did NOT resubmit at any point... It lead to a whole deal of Misunderstanding between me and the wiki community members, that appears not to have ceased (~ from your side)... and now I have this review from BlueMoonset...! And taking note of it.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Further to what the bot says, if you're trying to add something to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Exemplo347 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia defines notability and is therefore not eligible for a Wikipedia 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{talk to me} 02:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>>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...!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 you 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IF I don't have the freedom to write in MY talk page (not on NeliN's) then 'freedom of speech' is questionable in your community as a whole... That reminds me of Nazi Germany... Sorry to say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayabalan.joseph (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOFREESPEECHHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to write whatever you want on your talk page only, but don't direct it to any individual editors, and avoid posting anywhere else on WP. In other words, you can use WP as your own private diary, with no interaction with any editors, avoiding disruptive editing, even on your Talk Page. Primarily, don't ask for help on WP, and don't expect it if you want total talk-page freedom. Favors on WP are granted to no one, particularly regarding reliable sources. WP is, in that regard, like the mythical Procrustes, heartless. Just do your own homework. As for shepherds, don't request their help and then attack them. Don't expect pure benevolence. Editors are like cops: we have, over time, seen it all, and know how deleterious some editors can or could be to the integrity of WP. And note that the ironclad, long-term rules of WP are not capricious like the Nazi laws and actions you refer to. They are formed through consensus and discussion, evolving over time, not by voting and letting the side with the most votes win. The side with the most compelling argument wins.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oo Great help arrives here... When I got blocked...! Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"But you have no "right" to express yourself at will in someone else's home"... Source: WP:NOFREESPEECHHERE

And given that I don't write in any one's Talk pages since the blockade... why would someone else be willing to come forward to communicate in mine... They seem to know they are wrong and are trying to justify their act...?

Great community...! Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayabalan. I saw your posts at the Teahouse and was going to post some advice here, but it seems you have been blocked. Just for reference, we do not own our use pages or user talk pages as explained in WP:UP#OWN. You can remove comments from your user talk page if you like as long as doing so is in accordance with WP:BLANKING.

For what its worth, the community tends to allow us a little leeway when it comes to the content we post on user pages, but it will intervene and take action when it feels they are being used inappropriately. While it's unfortunate that you've gotten blocked, continuing to post as you are doing is only going to lead an administrator to either (1) extend your block, (2) revoke your user talk page priviledges (it's indeed a priviledge not a right) or (3) do both (1) and (2). You probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Appealing a block, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Help:I have been blocked to familiarize yourself with what happens when an editor is blocked. Your primary use of your user talk page at the moment should be limited to figuring out what you need to do to get your account unblocked; any thing else is not going to help things at all.

I am posting this in good faith and mean you no ill will. Many editors get blocked when they first start out editing because they are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's very policies and guidelines. Those that decide to be here to help build the encyclopedia often move on to become very positive contributors to the project; those who don't often find themselves on the outside looking in unable to return to any form of editing in good standing. I hope you decide to be one of the former and not the latter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what Marchjuly said, we welcome editors who create and improve articles according to our policies and guidelines. But if all you're here for is to publish and promote your own original research then Wikipedia is not a good fit for you. I will happily unblock if you indicate you understand this and indicate where else you'd like to contribute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that with good will you people are here Communicating with me... That's great from your part... I wish to know from you both what measures (/corrections) I could do in order to get this draft published.

BTW: This is not Original content, and has been published elsewhere in the first place...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: peer reviewing Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic "peer reviewing", of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17547/

scholarly monographs: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Some theses are later published in the form of "scholarly monographs" or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/RETHINKING-Evolution-J-Joseph-Ph-D-ebook/dp/B01FW9R0M4

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKGEYHO

Awaiting your reply...

PS: If you don't reply then it would lead me to assume that, you both came here with intentions of Intimidating me by explaining the "priviledges" that you so hold...?

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can assume what you like, but my post was made in good faith. Moreover, all Wikipedians are volunteers, which means they are not required to respond to anything on demand or even at all if they choose not to. All I can say about your draft is that is your responsibility to show that it is not original research by establishing that the subject matter has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. You can ask for other opinons at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology about your draft if you like. Be advised though that primary sources in and of themselves are generally considered insufficient for establishing Wikipedia notability and that secondary sources are need for such a thing. So, if you can show that such published secondary sourcing exists, then your draft has a good chance of being accepted. The burden of doing such at thing, however, falls primarily upon you.

At the same time. if you disagree with Wikipedia's definition of "original reserach" or feel it needs some updating to bring it more in tune with your way of thinking, then the place to discuss that would be at Wikipedia talk:No original research or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Decisions, especially about core policies and guidelines, are going to require input from the community at large and will not take place overnight. These decisions are made by consensus and comments may be requested per Wikipedia:Requests for comments.

You are, however, going to be unable to do any of the above as long as your account remains blocked, so I strongly suggest that you focus on finding out what you need to do to get unblocked and avoid trying to discuss anything else. This is the best advice I can give you at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comeon NeilN, Marchjuly...

To Err is very Human... Just imagine 15-20 years down the line and the admin of wiki is going to be a Computer (AI/Robo)... If you get blocked-up like me... Would you expect the AI to behave so humane to you...? I don’t think so... By now we, the admins are all humans with a heart and a mind... There are times in life, when you could not make decisions by asking to your brain... At those times try listening to what your Heart says...

It is good Being human...?

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admnistrator so I do not have the ability to block or unblock other editors. I saw your post(s) at the Teahouse, and it seemed you were having problems understanding what Wikipedia is not, so I thought I'd try to help. After looking at your talk page, I noticed you had been blocked which means that you would not be able to respond to anything further posted at the Teahouse; so, I posted my conmment here instead. If you want to be unblocked, then read the links I provided above and follow the advice given in them. Administrators typically only block an editor to prevent further disruption of the encyclopedia, and not to punish anyone. Moreover, they are usually more than happy to give a blocked editor a second chance when the editor shows that they understand the mistake which was made and agrees not to repeat it. NeilN is an administrator and he clearly stated he will unblock you if you just explain how you intend to contribute to building the the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so unless you want to wait 15 to 20 years to be unblocked, I suggest you focus more on the present than what might come to be. Whatever comments you have from here on are probably going to be best answered by an administrator, so I'll leave any further replies up to one of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would wait for 15 years to be unblocked... But that does not mean people can expect one to kiss their feet to get things done in wiki...? Any way thanks for easing things up...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly Looks like NeilN has gone to bed... Any way I would like to know; If every one is a volunteer in wiki and seemingly having difference in opinion in decision making... Who actually decides on accepting an article...? And how would I put forward my appeal against the decision made by an editor...

For example: In my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis Editor Exemplo347 believes that my draft should be declined citing policy "reliable sources" while I actually find evidence in this policy supporting my draft to have "reliable sources"... I write to Exemplo347 and he says that he just reviewed... All those weeks I waited has been wasted by an editor who seems to take no responsibility for his deed... (Atleast Exemplo347 was not very authoritative)... Who should I appeal to put forward my point seeking draft acceptance...?

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy requiring reliable sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I stand for a Good cause that falls within the wiki limitations and I work hard to get it done in-spite of recurrent waves of misunderstandings Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's not enough information here to consider unblocking you. Note, though, that standing for a good cause strongly implies WP:BATTLEGROUND, which would be grounds to extend your block indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (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.

It is my opinion that use of words like Online 'Patrolling' should me morphed in to terms such as 'Shepherding' or so... These kind of words seem to provoke an attitude of authority in the minds of your editors (eg, Orange Mike and few others), admins. As they exhibit cheap authority towards new users like me. I find Patrolling, Policing and Dictating all very common in this community. Soo sad to know how Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Not many seem to take responsibility but almost everyone exhibits Authority...! IMO the attitude of exhibiting Authority with out taking due Responsibility, is very common in the Wiki community of Volunteers... Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jayabalan.joseph My assessment of your dilemma is that you believe your article should be on WP, and nobody wants to go to bat for you. If editors follow WP protocols (and most do), you seem to be hoping for a possibly noncomplying editor to help you, someone who could change numerous other editors' opinions by making a compelling argument in your favor, almost like a lawyer or a "fixer". I've never observed such editors here.

You also are trying to toady up to editors, while offering personal attacks as the dreaded alternative. This is extortion. Have you been involved in litigation lately?

In a robot future, it wouldn't be possible, and you cannot call an edit-bot heartless and cruel, any more than Amazon's website is cruel when you enter a wrong number and get a predictable response.

Perhaps you can now hire a keen legal mind to formulate some plans. The legal expert would need to learn all WP policies first, though. Until you find the Reliable Sources, you will only be trying to force your article onto WP as a ram goes through a wooden fence: by hitting its head with great force. Remember, you lack those curly horns.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quisqualis I would rather not take the courage to argue with you... Because of a Personal policy that I have been following for years now... http://www.coolnsmart.com/images/cns/01/coolnsmart-17343.jpg

User:Jayabalan.joseph - On the one hand, I don't think that I agree with the original block. However, at this point I support not only the original block but a Site Ban for personal attacks. I tried to give some advice as to what was needed in the draft, in particular, a discussion of what other researchers had said about the hypothesis. The draft was resubumitted without addressing my comments, and it seems that the subject editor isn't trying to learn what Wikipedia's standards and guidelines are. The subject states that English is not their first language, which does explain their difficulty in communicating, but perhaps they do not know enough English to be able to edit constructively in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon My apologies to you... I do agree that my command over the English language, may not be very good enough... I would like to bring to your attention that I did not "resubmit" the draft... Even Exemplo347 had asked me the very same question as to why I had pressed the resubmit button..? I was surprised by his question... I never hit it or even don't remember seeing one... Pl ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Exemplo347 Further more to my knowledge I hit a button some three weeks ago (I don't remember the name in that button)... It is now that I see a Resubmit button in the draft which I have not yet touched...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You resubmitted it with this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry I could have Resubmitted by 27 March 2017 (as I mentioned earlier that I remember hitting a button three weeks ago)... I remember waiting for two-three weeks for the review and was editing contents as Robert McClenon was posting his comments... I did not hit any other buttons after him posting his comments.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and discuss it... It just brings added shame...

Blocking and Revoking access clearly reveals your weakness and incompetence... (as long as you are not willing to help people but police and patrol them... shame on you)

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Projection much? Wikipedia isn't a scholarly journal, it's an encyclopedia. This is not the place to debate and push your ideas, we just report on what others say about them. Until your hypothesis has gained some measure of notability in academic circles, it does not belong here. 2600:1017:B016:D3B8:2219:38FE:7783:172C (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK What should I make out of this policy from Wiki...?

To me it says that peer reviewed PhD thesis has to be considered as a reliable source...

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic "peer reviewing", of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayabalan.joseph (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) --David Biddulph (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PhD theses can sometimes be considered reliable sources and used to support material in articles, Jayabalan.joseph. You need to also understand our notability requirements though. See Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, which summarises these nicely. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Thank you for being patient with me...

Please verify my views about three things that are required to get into wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_answer_to_life,_the_universe,_and_everything)

Reliable sources: Peer reviewing Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic "peer reviewing", of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

My peer reviewed PhD thesis dealing with the wiki draft's hypothesis https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17547/

Independent sources: scholarly monographs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Some theses are later published in the form of "scholarly monographs" or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources.

Independent books that deal with the wiki draft's hypothesis...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/RETHINKING-Evolution-J-Joseph-Ph-D-ebook/dp/B01FW9R0M4

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKGEYHO

Significant coverage/ Notability:

More 5000 copies of my books (dealing with the wiki draft) have been downloaded since 2014 and https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Joseph4/stats gives the weekly reads since feb 2017...

An independent source would be something written by someone other than you, Jayabalan.joseph. You are not independent of the hypothesis, since it's one that you've proposed. In order to have a Wikipedia article on a topic, that topic needs to have been covered in multiple secondary sources (such as articles or books written by other people that cite your thesis or books). We don't have an article on every PhD thesis ever written for this reason - most won't have received enough coverage in independent sources to be considered notable. "Coverage" means published coverage of the topic, not the number of people who have read about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is more specific:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Relationship_to_self-published_sources primary does not mean non-independent or affiliated with the subject. also Secondary sources are often third-party or independent sources, but not always.

Pl write back Larry...

A non-independent source can sometimes be considered reliable for some purposes, yes, but doesn't help to establish notability. To establish notability, multiple, independent reliable sources are required. If you want to list some independent sources that have discussed this species branding hypothesis in depth, then I will be able to help you further. Otherwise, I would suggest that you spend your time doing something else, as your draft will never be accepted without these. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Larry I do want to list some independent sources that have discussed this species branding hypothesis in depth... Your help would be appreciable...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please list them below. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry A little misunderstanding of your question to me... I misunderstood as that you would be helping me with that...

I'll help with the draft if you can provide the independent sources. If there aren't any in existence, then there can be no article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is it in a nutshell - some portion of scientific comminity needs to have thought your hypothesis important enough to not only mention it but to give it significant coverage. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, it doesn't matter if it is better than other theories. It doesn't matter if one-day it will become the established paradigm. All that matters is what notice it has received from other scientists in reliable published sources. A Google Scholar search for "Species Branding" returns just 15 matches, and all appear to be referring to other things. Agricolae (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae You probably are aware that one can not write a book titled 'Species Branding Hypothesis' it has to be an easily understandable and reader friendly title such as "Rethinking Evolution" or "Evolution: What Darwin did not know by then"... I would like to bring to your attention that I have solved (as I believe), a Complex problem (The Species Problem) that had existed for Centuries; and has been seriously attempted to get solved at least for the past 150 years starting with people like Linnaeus, Darwin etc...

It being extremely difficult to solve the problem in the first place (cognitively demanding); is still more difficult to explain it to an average reader... A book would be the right medium to get the message across, given the volume of data that one could deliver and the multiplicity of images which one could embed in to... You may try to understand me or you could find for yourself, if you would download the free copy of my book https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313638395_Evolution_What_Darwin_did_Not_know_by_then https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313666355_Rethinking_Evolution

I see that Google does turn up when searched for my books

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=rethinking+evolution+joseph+j&oq=rethinking+evolution

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=evolution+what+darwin+did+not+know+by+then+joseph+j

Given the fact that I published the book "Evolution: What Darwin did not know by then" on Google Books (public); I don't understand why google scholar does not return a hit... To my surprise it is not found on my Google books public folder anymore... (Could be due to some copyrights issues with Amazon where the book was first published in 2014 or that I guess I would have to upload the book again...)

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But again, this is not about me or anyone else finding or reading or understanding your book. (And for what it's worth, I have enough expertise to understand what you describe, although I don't necessarily agree with all of it.) It is about finding published scientific commentary about your book, examples where some other scientist read your book and published a review or commentary about it. I find none. Has it been described or even cited in a Biology text book? Has Nature or Science included a commentary that addressed it? That is the kind of notice that imbues a biological hypothesis with notability, and shows us that it merits a page. Agricolae (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae I has not been cited in Nature or Science... But is has been noticed by Researchers and readers world wide... The two books have been downloaded more than 5000 copies since the past two years and has been actively read on Research Gate by Researchers world wide since feb 2017 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Joseph4/stats/reads?ref_hfsw=1

The comments of other Researchers has been added to the draft... Further more I Don't have a policy of actively requesting peers and other reviewers to write comments about my books... If that is all what would be required by wiki to get my draft through, I can budge in.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be going round in circles here. There's only one thing that will demonstrate notability, and that's coverage in independent sources. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. The number of downloads does nothing to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a deficit that can be solved by asking more people to give you comments. To be notable, it needs to become part of the discourse of the field, so that people are talking about it and commenting on it, in print, without you having to ask. This often takes years, decades, or in the case of continental drift, almost a century. The RNA World hypothesis is like this - it is mentioned in textbooks and taught in lectures, and there have been published articles about how, for example, Tom Cech's ribozymes are consistent with it. The same with Lynn Margulis' Mitochondrial Endosymbiosis theory, which I still remember being talked about when it was a curious idea, before it became accepted dogma. Though the commentary was mostly negative, there was a time when the Aquatic Ape theory got talked about, in print. On the other hand, I would hazzard to guess that the vast majority of biologists (of which there are many, many more than your 5000 downloads, and you don't know that most of those are biologists, or that, having downloaded the book they actually read it - downloading is easy, readiing is hard) have never even heard of the Species Branding hypothesis. While getting people to read your material is necessary for it to gain notability, it is far from sufficient, and adding comments readers have shared with you does nothing - again, this needs to have become part of the ordinary, day-to-day scientific discourse. Agricolae (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae Your arguments are very genuine but those concepts like RNA World hypothesis/theory, Tom Cech's ribozymes, Lynn Margulis' Mitochondrial Endosymbiosis theory are THEORIES... My Species Branding Hypothesis is just a HYPOTHESIS... As obvious a Theory gets well debated among the scientific community (in Nature & Science) and finally gets accepted years (/Centuries) later... A Hypothesis is different... It is an Innovative concept what is proposed by a scientist... But for it is synthesized the right way to answer a scientific problem it does not get noticed (notability) among the scientific community... My hypothesis is very well synthesized that it answers a complex problem in Biology, that which has existed for centuries and has been tried to be answered multiple times (>26 times) with out any result... I would request you to have a look at one of my books @ Research gate (free) or if you can from Amazon using the Kindle reader... I am sure you could find for yourself the difference between the SBH and other previous Hypotheses...

For more information on 'the species problem' and the failed attempts by the different hypothesis (including the current one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem#Mayr.27s_Biological_Species_Concept), pl watch the following video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rm94XtFK6I

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory

Extras: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=what+is+a+difference+between+a+theory+and+a+hypothesis&oq=what+is+a+difference+between+a+theory+and+a+hypothesis&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.576j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Regards, Joseph J.

This is just a semantic distintinction without a difference. Your hypothesis is no different as a framework for undeerstanding some aspect of biology than those 'theories' were when proposed. Indeed, we have a redirect from 'RNA World Hypothesis' to our 'RNA world' article, an likewise 'Endosymbiont hypothesis' to our 'Symbiogenesis'. It is creating a false dicotomy to suggest that scientists talk about theories all the time, but don't talk about hypotheses. The key distinction between those and your is that they are notable, and yours appears not to have been noticed. To say that yours is not talked about because it is only a hypothesis still admits that it doesn't get talked about, and that is all that matters. Me reading your theory would not change that, no matter what I think of it. Please try to understand, as I am getting tired of trying to find different ways to express the same concept. Notability on Wikipedia has nothing whatsover to do with the relative merits of your proposal, and everything to do with how much it gets disussed in the literature of the field. It does not matter why it doesn't get discussed, only that it doesn't get discussed. Agricolae (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae My claiming that my hypothesis was not 'original research' received soo much opposition from some of the wiki community members (more than one)... Later I had to show them that there exists a wiki policy to accept 'peer reviewed' PhD thesis as sources and wiki policies also favor acceptance of 'Scholarly Monologues' as sources... When your Experts would be NOT be aware of the existing policies of wiki and would be arguing (bit authoritatively) against the acceptance of my draft... I don't know what I should make out of this...! Pl note that WP:5P5 is also one of the pillars of wiki.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, there is a difference between a PhD thesis being considered a reliable source and the contents of that thesis being notable and therefore eligible for their own article. Since you refuse to grasp the need for independent coverage to demonstrate notability, I won't be posting here again and I suggest that other editors take the same approach. The answers to all of your questions are to be found at Wikipedia:Notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry I am not here to argue with anyone or to promote myself, I just stand for a Good cause...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important distinction to be made with regard to a Thesis being a reliable source. The standard format for such a document is to have an extensive literature review as an introduction, and then present original research and conclusions based on that original research. The lit review portion of the thesis then satisfies all of the criteria for being a good source for Wikipedia. It has been peer reviewed (by your committee), it is for the most part (except used with care when you are summarizing prior work from your own research group) independent of generators of the material being discussed, and it is secondary, summarizing primary research reports previouly published. The remaining majority of a thesis has also been peer reviewed, but it is neither independent - you are writing it about your own ideas - nor is it secondary, it being the original formulation of your research findings and interpretations. Thus the Introduction of a thesis does indeed qualify as a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia, but the actual findings of the thesis do not. It would be appropriate to use my thesis to demonstrate the notability of the topic I covered in my introduction, but not the notability of my own findings. Independence is key. When you are writing about someone else's ideas, the fact that you choose them to write about imbues them with notability, when you are writing about your own ideas it does not. Agricolae (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae I am not talking about notability here... pl don't mix them both... I am saying that my PhD thesis has been 'Peer reviewed' by people outside my department & research group...

Again I am not here to argue with you guys for sure... Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is questioning whether your thesis has been peer reviewed. That is not the problem with it, nor the reason your proposed Wikipedia page is being viewed unfavorably. Agricolae (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating what I just said at WP:ANI: You are free to advocate against the draft's deletion but if you use the Tearoom or community noticeboards to essentially lobby for a "peer review" of your thesis again then I will look into blocking you once more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:NeilN Can you be bit more clear... Are you trying to say the you could block me, if I would express the Fact that my PhD thesis was 'Peer reviewed'... The link to the PhD thesis having been given to you already; you could easily verify for yourself, if it got peer reviews in the first place...!

Ok in case you mean to say the you would block me if I request for the opinion of SMEs on Tearoom or community noticeboards, what problem do you find in me with disruptive editing or so...?

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Do not use Wikipedia to promote or ask for reviews of your thesis. The only thing you should be doing is showing how your article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just eager to know if wiki has a policy on that or is just your opinion...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having not received any reply from User:NeilN, I will be glad to have the opinion of other wiki members (Robert McClenon, Cordless Larry, Exemplo347 and others)...

Policy on what? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN I am just trying to explore, how welcoming is wiki and its admins to new contributors... I am repeating my question: does wiki has policies against contributors requesting the opinion of SMEs in wiki Tearoom or community noticeboards... If such policies exist can you pl text back quoting them...?

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your activities here need to be focused on what the community deems acceptable content for Wikipedia. It has a policy that original research is not acceptable content. "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: 1. Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN I guess you are trying to mix up your claim of my draft as 'Original research'; with me asking for "wiki policies which forbids contributors requesting the opinion of SMEs in wiki Tearoom or community noticeboards"... Are you trying to interpret the existing wiki policies Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought in your own terms... And warning me as "if you use the Tearoom or community noticeboards to essentially lobby for a "peer review" of your thesis again then I will look into blocking you once more"...?

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you the reason why certain behavior may result in another block. You can disagree with that reason but you can't say you weren't warned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN I certainly can't say that I haven't been warned by You... but can say that the reason you gave is very lame and unjust... Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Jimmy Wales said that he "assembled a ragtag band of volunteers" when he originated wiki, it is unfortunate that wiki continues to be that 'ragtag band' even years later... Many volunteers (with whom I communicated) have not learnt the disciplines needed for the trade...!

I had a very bad user experience as a new contributor to wiki... As I understand now, my account got Vandalized which resulted in heated debates with some of the wiki volunteers... But it also led me gauge the values that these individuals hold, and values that wiki holds as a community... Really not much.. as against my initial expectations.

One of your admins said that he could publish his grocery list on Amazon books, and went on to block my account... The conversation that I had with him in my Talk page; reveals the undeserved authority that he would be prepared to execute, without giving a second thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayabalan.joseph#You.27re_confusing_the_publisher_.28you.29_with_the_seller_.28Amazon.29._Amazon_would_sell_my_weekly_grocery_lists_if_I_published_them._--NeilN_talk_to_me_02:32.2C_17_April_2017_.28UTC.29

People like these don’t merely have the capacity to defend their views, but are a clear disgrace to your community as a whole... It doesn't matter if those people stay from dawn to dusk in their mom's basement working for wiki... If they are not receptive to the values others hold and the Good causes they stand for... these people amount to No more than dedicated Prison Guards...

And 72 hrs later my block got released... the same admin would try to intimidate me, over me discussing matters related to my draft with SMEs on tea house...! When ask for, he is NOt capable of providing any apt reasons; as to why would he prevent me from doing so... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayabalan.joseph#Your_block_has_expired Without their ability to provide due reason for their act, people like him easily identify themselves as "Faceless Cowards"...

People don’t seem to understand that their technical Wizardry and Super user privileges that they hold are not going to amount much in the end... These things have been tried before in history; at least a century ago in the middle of Europe... And only resulted in those people badly failing at it, faking their death and exiting continental Europe to South America... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KolkCUXuQHU http://sharkhunters.com/

@NeilN Go ahead and try to tame the freedom of people who live for Good causes... I bet you can't... even in your wildest dreams...

But I also find among the wiki community volunteers who were willing to help... IMO: But for those experts who hold multiple barn stars, much of your volunteers like the experienced admin that I has a problem with; just tend to bring more disgrace to your community...

It would be good if either Google or FB takesover Wikipedia; for given their expertise with handling technocrats and channeling them rightfully, so as to add value to their organisation... as against a 'ragtag band' that wiki continues to exist to this very day.

Also I think that as of now Google gives undeserved weight-age to Wikipedia in its search results...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayabalan.joseph: This is Wikipedia, not Blogger. —JJBers 00:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested for a Review for the 'second time'....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis#Request_for_Reviews_.282nd.29....

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, specifically having a battleground mentality, harassing other editors, and clearly being on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of self-promotion. 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 ~~~~}}.  Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The core issues remain - for example, the lack of detailed analysis of the hypothesis in any sources that are independent of the subject - the author's own books don't count. Secondly, the "summary" section has no place in a Wikipedia article - after all, Wikipedia articles should not be essays. If this particular subject is to have a place on Wikipedia, the article about it should be written by someone totally unconnected to it, because the neutrality of this draft is totally compromised.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Exemplo347 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]