Talk:National Spot Exchange

Article needs to be cleaned up to comply to wipedia guidelines

The article seems to have been written using exceprts and copying over content from various media reports> an example is Section 3, which looks to be from a media report. The article needs cleanup. Can be done by the author or any editor. Since I am not an expert on the subkect, I could not do the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uttiya.basu (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Lot of digression going on apparently to influence opinions. The page needs to be cleaned up in line with WP:NPA WP: EP Serious editors please advise and help Johnsonwatts (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging NSEL scam

Go through WP:MERGE for more details.

• My initial reaction is that the article on NSEL scam is larger than National Spot Exchange. It would appear as though NSEL scam is a section (and therefore sub-topic) of the National Spot Exchange. It's also worth considing WP:UNDUE. Article titles determine the scope for the article and one shouldn't go off-topic. I'm afraid I don't know enough about these two things to really offer a firm opinion. Just thought I'd help out with my two cents. Jolly Ω Janner 22:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• • That is correct, would suggest the two pages remain stand alone so that users get relevant information for the keywords they used.Naaracrusade (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Jolly Janner. All viewpoints considered, WP:UNDUE does make sense. Everyone needs to run through it to understand why merging the two pages makes sense. Adamtheroux (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Adamtheroux Vested forces trying hard against merging the two pages as it would limits scope of vandalism. Jolly Janner  could you help keeping such forces off in line with WP:Vandalism   Johnsonwatts (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The NSEL exchange is killed by fraudster and the same people want to kill the scam/case page so that people forget about the fraud.Content generated over 2-1/2 years will be lost if the pages are merged. NSEL exchange is non operational and is technically merged with parent FTIL by ministry of corporate affairs. The matter is now sub judice but not heard on merit yet.Hidden agenda of people hired by scammers. Indianmatador (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Some johnny come lately is trying to vandalize hard work of people who built content here. NSEL is not functional and it is the scam that matters now. Nimrodindia (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"NSEL scam" page provides a biased view and does not cover articles / information of acton taken by SEBI & Honourable Bombay High Court Committee. Pls do not merge these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth about NSEL (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits Required

I have been reviewing the page and I see many missing citations and outdated information. Currently, I'm under the process of looking up information. Just letting all editors know that I will be updating the page with relevant citations and up-do-date information. I welcome all editors to join in and help me to make the page readable. Please share your thoughts and comments here. Thank you Shebzeny (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

AshamedIndian, I am reasonably convinced that, as a fellow critique of the matter under discussion, you would have definitely noticed my earlier posting here (aforementioned). If not, then allow me to bring it to your notice once again: I had mentioned that I will be making changes to the page after thorough research.

It was quite a shock, then, to discover that the text had been reversed twice, evidently by you, without any sort of research or reasoning to back it up.

Now, I am sure we can agree upon the fact that in a time-sensitive matter such as this, where circumstances have changed over time and gravely affected the course of the debate, letting the content remain as it was is depriving it of the veracity that it deserves.

Allow me to request you the following: As true investigators of facts, let us reason out tête-à-tête and debate here with our unique set of arguments and propositions, as convention would dictate, before we settle on the final content.

I look forward to your cooperation on the same so that we can reach a swift resolution.

Thank you. Shebzeny (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Shebzeny, My edits are well researched and mostly follow public information on reputed web sites. If you need links to validate any information on modifications made by me, let me know and I will provide the same.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshamedIndian (talk • contribs) 12:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC) AshamedIndian,

To begin with, the previous content wasn’t supported by enough citations in the first place. It has citations from as long back as 2006 and some are unavailable.

Let me assure you that you have no reason to worry about the legitimacy of your citations and source. The concern that I have with the content that you wish to feature on the page is that it doesn't paint the complete picture. There have been many developments in the case that should also be posted on the page but unfortunately, are not taken into account by the changes you have made. If you could, then please enlighten me on the fallacies or shortcomings of my content on the page which you feel should not feature, quite evidently. If you can shed some new light on where I might be wrong, I will gladly review my own research and update it to the best of my knowledge. Thank you Shebzeny (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

References

National Spot Exchange / National Spot Exchange Limited

The article's title doesn't have limited but the intro of the article does. Should the article title be changed to National Spot Exchange Limited? RJFJR (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)