User talk:Vishal210891

Welcome!

Hello, Vishal210891, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Direct editing versus Talk option

The vast majority of edits are made directly to articles. If an edit is reverted, then a discussion can be started at Talk to see if a consensus can be reached. Often helps to invite the reverting editor to said discussion. If an editor has a conflict of interest (for example, personally know the subject of an article), then should declare COI on own User page and either directly edit or suggest edits at Talk. If an editor is paid, must declare paid on own User page, and is strongly recommended to propose specific edits at Talk, so that non-involved editors can decide to incorporate into article or not. I hope this helps explain. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Raheja Developers. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 06:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi thank you bonadea for the advice I will surely keep this is mind I am a little new to this platform and am still going thought the learning curve according my knowledge in order to make any changes in the real page we need to edit it on talks page. Hence I made some changes which I thought were not correct according to my research Talk:Raheja Developers

Hello, Vishal210891, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Kanetvishal21 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 06:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi bonadea Thank you for the reminding me the guidelines i completely understand the policies on multiple account but the reason for me to create another account is beacuse of the fact that I no longer have the access to the account Kanetvishal21 (talk · contribs) and you would no longer see any edits from that account. I would reaaly appreciate if you could send me some important links which I can go thourght before my next edit.

bonadeaMy soul purpose is to highlight some issues on Wiki where people with editor access are very smarty drafiting contnet and coullouding company profiles they very smartly hide facts and only highlight negitivity or stories which are demeaning to the organisations reputation. There is always a flip side of a coin too and I think no matter how bad or ill willed the person is, bringing out its positive side or highlighting it might provoke him to do some good too.

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JarwalSunil, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Vishal210891! You created a thread called Editing a page content at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020 UPE

Hello Vishal210891. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Vishal210891. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Vishal210891|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

bonadeaThank you for your reply I would request you to please focus on my question rather than bombarding a new user with accusations. I am a proud employee of Raheja developers who wishes the goodwill of our organisation and customer/ users who wish to choose us.Vishal210891 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Not "accusations", simply a response to the fact that you had already self-identified as being employed the company. Wikipedia's terms of service are very clear on this subject. Please take some time to read the information above. Wikipedia does not allow company representatives to use the encyclopedia as a platform for cultivating goodwill towards their company. --bonadea contributions talk 07:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you bonadea for the prompt reply, Although I agree to be a part of the organisation I wish to suggest and edits keeping in mind my edits are not baised or influenced by my goodwill for the organisation all we require is Wiki to provide correct information based souly on facts and figure happening. Although we have full faith in Wiki editors to publish correct knowledge but I think new edits are always welcome, the priority should be given to correct information rather than where the information is coming from just to make it simple this is  the line we wish to change from " RDL was incorporated in 1989 and is currently facing insolvency proceedings as of July, 2019." the term " currently is not only gramatically incorrect but also has no relevancy. Instead it could be drafted as RDL was incorporated in 1989 and was faced insolvency proceedings as of July, 2019 which was later squashed by the NCLAT court as of Jan 2020. here are some of my references   This not only provides a background information of the company but also gives a future insight of the organisation as well. bonadea I just want to make this clear. This is not an edit in the welfare of the organisation it is a simple and unbaised correction please let me know if you see any baised content or showing any hint of inclination towards my organisation.Vishal210891 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

bonadeaSince you are so adamant on not making any changes It is making me feel like you have an undisclosed financial stake in demoting a topic,Kindly stop being the guardians of a brand which is not anyways yours or disclose your mollified intention to malign the image of my organisation? If you stand so firmly to your decision of not editing the page please Reveal your motive in not doing so and disturbing a reputed platform like WIKIPEDIA through which you are conveying wrong messages in the public. Aren’t you getting paid for it or are you hiding it? Because if you not getting paid for it then why are you so hell bent to spread negativity for a company which has been cleared by the Indian judiciary system ? You should read the judgement of the court which is meant for people like you who have been trying to sabotage the image of the developer by doing things which are illegal and inappropriate.Vishal210891 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I consider you an unbiased editor who strongly believe in-the concept of encyclopaedia providing the right content regardless of the fact whether it is positive or negative. It is my humble request for-you to please go thought the article once and you shall see the inclination towards projecting a negative image for our organisation.Vishal210891 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We will be obliged if you welcome our edits for the article we will make sure our content will adhere all wiki policies and an unbiased approach towards our organisation

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Undisclosed paid editing, as you did at Raheja Developers.

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 ~~~~}}.  RexxS (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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).

Vishal210891 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Wiki is a free encyclopaedia meant for people to gain knowledge and learn about the organisation. positive or negative content does not play an important role unless it is porting the absolute truth. I wish to make edits tp the page in accordance with wiki policies and my fellow editors on Wiki. to help display the correct knowledge and facts. Vishal210891 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

You will also need to clearly and unequivocally retract the legal threat above in order for any administrator to consider an unblock request. See this information. --bonadea contributions talk 13:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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).

Vishal210891 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Greetings fellow editors I wish to take back my approach and would lik to strart fresh here on this topic of dicussion here firstly I would like to take back my legal threat mentioned in my comment I understand the reason why I have been blocked I also accept it was a naive attemt in trying to change the contnent i nthe first go without learning anything and now as my wiki journey progress I am learning and coming to respect Wiki policies and abiding by them. but I still firmly stand by my opinion on the article for Raheja developer being baised and influenced, and will continue this mission of potryaing the correct information for my organisation with significant sources to prove my pointsbonadea Vishal210891 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't feel from the above that you appreciate why you've been blocked. If the only reason you want to be able to edit Wikipedia is to write about your employer, you're here for the wrong reason; while we don't outright forbid writing about one's employer we do very, very strongly discourage it, and for good reason. Nothing you've written, either in these appeals or in the preceding thread, gives any indication that you're not immediately going to go back to the behaviour that got you blocked. We do not want an editor on a "mission of potryaing the correct information for my organisation", as editors with a close connection to a topic find it almost impossible to write neutrally about that topic. If you're willing to (1) fully retract your legal threat and give appropriate apologies and (2) undertake that when you have a conflict of interest on an article you won't edit the pages in question and will instead restrict yourself to making suggestions on the articles' talk pages, I'd be willing to unblock on the understanding that any further paid editing will result in an immediate and permanent block. ‑ Iridescent 06:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Iridescent I completely understand and comply with why I have been blocked. Editing my comapny page is not only my soul motive to be on Wiki I wish to be a part of the Wiki community and have already created quite a scandal amongst you editors :). But I cannot emphasise enough on the fact that I am not here to remove negtivity of my organisations My motive is to populate Wiki with correct information be it any organsation or topic,it is obvious I just happen to start with my own page first . I have removed the legal threat and going forward will adhere to Wiki edit policies. I hope you find this appeal genuine and unblock me.Vishal210891 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Vishal210891, You do not appear to understand the fundamental issue that on Wikipedia there is no such thing as anyone's own page. Until this is fully understood by yourself, and you are able to convince an admin that you both understand this principle and undertake to abide by all the terms of use of the WMF, and learn how to contribute constructively in terms of our (Wikipedia's) editing and behavioural policies and guidelines, you will remain blocked. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)