User talk:Bhaskargupta269

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Bhaskargupta269, 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:

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Raheja ‎[edit]

Please do not revert to the prior version on the article for Navin Raheja. The issue I found with the page is that the article was written in an extremely positive, promotional manner that is considered to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that I'm necessarily siding with the other editor, but it does mean that additional edits to the page should be in keeping with the WP:NPOV policy. You can add to the page as long as it is neutrally written, although since there has been some concern over the article it would probably be better to discuss any changes or additions on the article's talk page. I'll warn you, Wikipedia does not contain only promotional material and if someone has been involved in anything potentially unpleasant then it should be included if there is enough sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Paid editing[edit]

You have been asked here whether or not you are being paid to edit the article about Raheja Developers; off-wiki evidence suggests that this may well be the case. You have not given an answer to this question. Please note that undisclosed paid editing is a direct violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use; if you fail to disclose that you are receiveing renumeration, either directly or indirectly, for your editing on Wikipedia, your account will be blocked. The easiest way to make such a disclosure is to place a notice on your talk page.

If you continue to avoid giving a direct answer to this question, I will have no choice (based on the available evidence) but to assume that you are being paid to edit, and will block your account indefinitely. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any paid edit for anyone. I am new to Wikipedia. I was just practicing my edit in Wikipedia. The reason behind this question is, I made some edits on Wikipedia page of Raheja Developers and Navin Raheja. After that I have found that my edit have been removed and replaced by negative content. I just questioned that undoes to my edits. I don't have time to work for anyone. If you all are feeling that I have made any paid edits then I will stop editing on these pages. That is what I can say in my answer to your queries. I was not ignoring anyone.Bhaskargupta269 (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. With regards to the content you have been adding (particularly around articles relating to Nayan Raheja), please be aware that Wikipedia takes a very firm line with regards to editing that appears to promote its subject - laudatory wording such as this or this is simply not acceptable. A simple rule of thumb, which may make editing easier for you, is to eschew the use of adjectives - generally, descriptive terminology (particularly in relation to living people) is not conducive to encyclopedic writing. Another good rule of thumb: if your wording wouldn't look out of place on the company's website, you're not writing neutrally. Company websites exist for promotion - Wikipedia emphatically does not.

For example, let's analyse the first three sentences from this edit:

You wrote: It [Raheja Developers] is well known in the business of constructing residential, commercial and hospitality projects and townships. Every Raheja project is designed with the highest ethics of Design, sustainability and luxury incorporated into it. The Raheja design team consists of over 20 seasoned architects, a lot of whom have worked with international design practices in the past.

This would be more appropriate for Wikipedia if it were phrased like this: It [Raheja Developers] is a construction firm. The Raheja design team consists of over 20 architects.^[2]

I have removed the term "well-known", as this is a speculative and subjective term: well-known by whom? This is an example of weasel wording, implying that the company is popular (and therefore good) without giving any specific information.
I've removed the list of construction projects. If these were the only projects in which the company was involved, and if there was a source to verify this, it would be appropriate. However, simply listing some of the major elements of the company's work is unnecessary; it is sufficient for the reader to know that the company is a construction firm.
I've taken out the second sentence altogether. Again, there is no source to verify the company's ethics, nor to confirm that every project embodies these ethics. Moreover, these terms are all very subjective; who defines what is meant by "the highest ethics of design, sustainability and luxury"? This is peacock wording; it makes the subject sound good without providing any quantifiable evidence.
I've removed the descriptions of the architects, and implied the addition of a source. The number of architects who work for the firm is a concrete piece of information, and should be verifiable (even if only by reference to the company's own website). However, whether they are "seasoned" or not is wholly a matter of opinion. It is also not appropriate for an article about Raheja Developers to dwell on the previous work experience of its staff; this is not relevant to an article about the company itself.

I hope this brief example helps explain some of Wikipedia's content policies. For more information, please see WP:SOAP, WP:ARTSPAM and WP:NPOV. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You described very deep. Thanks for your time for me. Kindly let me know that if I will edit these pages with fresh content and neutral content, then you allow me to do that? Actually I am new here and it will be beneficial for me to work under your guidance. Also can I create neutral content for Navin Raheja page also? I promise that i will create only neutral content. Please let me know your answers.Bhaskargupta269 (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add neutral content from reliable sources (to any article) then please by all means do so. If you're unsure about the content you're adding, you are welcome to ask me on my talkpage to review it for you before making the edits.

As regards a separate article about Navi Raheja, my personal impression is that there is insufficient independent coverage out there to warrant the creation of such a page. I would suggest, if you want to pursue this course, that you start by creating a draft at Draft:Navin Raheja, and submit it for review (add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page when you're finished). Remember that you will need to show significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources to meet the inclusion requirements. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiaccnt1234. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiaccnt1234. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]