User talk:Leonardoofleaf

Welcome!

Hello, Leonardoofleaf! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started

Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset
How to: edit a page • upload an image

Getting Help

Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research
Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines
What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule
Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy
External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry
Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community

Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program
Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette
No personal attacks • Resolving disputes
Build consensus • Village pump
Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists
The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)

Things to do

Task Center • Be bold in editing
Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles
Join a WikiProject • Translating articles
Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism

Miscellaneous

Happy editing! ~~~~ NicePrettyFlower (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Leonardoofleaf! Your additions to Draft:Central Health Service have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Central Health Service has been accepted

Central Health Service, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Health and Family Welfare moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to National Institute of Health and Family Welfare. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. GrabUp - Talk 14:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Combined Medical Services Examination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Your edit to Central Government Health Scheme has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because It requires better sources to verify any notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (March 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

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.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The current sources do not establish notability. The organogram is surplus to requirements

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leonardoofleaf! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the information. Please provide a link to that comment so that I can understand where I crossed the line. English is not my first language, so mistakes do happen sometimes unintentionally. I apologise if that comment goes against the spirit of wikipedia. Leonardoofleaf (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Central Health Service, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the insight. I was just correcting a blind revert that erased weeks worth of work. Each line of that article was added one by one along with references after my research finding old publications.

So when a person erases all that work with a blind revert, without taking the effort or time to go through the article line by line and thereby improving the article as a whole, I would call that vandalism. If one doesn't agree with the content, correct it one by one by adding proper reference and justification, build up on already existing work and not destroy the whole work in a single click. Leonardoofleaf (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not our definition of WP:VANDALISM And now you are accusing an editor with over 250,000 edits who is also an Administrator, ie has the respect of the community, of blind reverts on every page. Stop. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can make mistakes. If you can't accept that, maybe you don't truly embody the spirit of wikipedia.

Wikipedia is what it is today because of common editors. I would like to hear your justification for his single click erasure of months worth of work adding contents line by line with references. Leonardoofleaf (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are showing a lack of good faith in me. Read my talk page to see what people think of me. Note I do not need any sympathy.

I’ll add that you should have read his edit summaries and asked him, a very experienced editor, what he meant and how you could fix any problems, Yes, you worked very hard, I can see that. But you are still very inexperienced and can’t be expected to know our policies and guidelines, so you should expect people who find it to edit it. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are now using the "appeal to authority" fallacy. We are talking about the edit made on the page. You, me and him don't matter. We are all editors here. I see that you are having a difficult time accepting that.

I wholeheartedly welcome any editor to help me improve the page. I know I cannot single handedly do this without any help. But erasing the whole work done during a period of weeks/months instead of taking time to go through the content one by one is disrespectful and an insult to a common editor. Leonardoofleaf (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t appeal to authority as I understand it. But I’m spending too much time here. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were talking about "who" did it rather than about "what" was done.

If you argue that an act is unquestionable because of the status of the person who did it, it definitely is an "appeal to authority" as I understand it. Leonardoofleaf (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]