User talk:Rajeshthapaliya

February 2023[edit]

Hi Rajeshthapaliya, I'm Rsjaffe. You'll likely not be pleased about this but I have removed some of your edits because they reveal too much personally identifiable information about you or another young person. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thank you, and sorry for messing about with your edits! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At UTRS, you failed to mention you posted personally identifying information about a minor. Please reread the above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern lies not in the rejection of Arianna's page, but rather in the arbitrary decision to block my account without justification. I seek clarity on the basis for this action and why it was deemed necessary to permanently restrict my ability to edit Wikipedia content.

It is disconcerting that such prompt decisions can be made without proper oversight. Wikipedia is not a private entity but a platform of significant educational importance, particularly for students. Therefore, it is imperative that the process of blocking users is transparent and fair.

I request an explanation from the appropriate authority regarding the individual responsible for blocking my account and revoking editing privileges. An apology and reinstatement of privileges are warranted.

As for Arianna, I am confident in her talent and abilities, and I will ensure that her information is published in due time, through appropriate channels. Her potential cannot be stifled, and I have no doubt that her achievements will speak for themselves.

My primary concern remains the accountability and fairness of actions taken on this platform.

Thank you. Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are. We block spammers on sight. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not the place to promote your daughter. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and I appreciate your diligence in blocking spammers. However, my inquiry pertains to the arbitrary blocking of my account and the removal of editing privileges. I have not engaged in spamming or promoting my daughter's accomplishments inappropriately. Therefore, I seek clarification on the basis for this action.

It is concerning that such decisions can be made without proper oversight. While I respect Wikipedia's policies, I believe that transparency and fairness are essential in all actions taken on this platform. As a user, I have the right to understand why my account was blocked and to have the opportunity to address any concerns.

I am confident that Arianna's achievements will speak for themselves in due time. However, my current focus is on resolving the issue of my blocked account and restoring editing privileges. I urge Wikipedia to uphold its commitment to transparency and fairness in all matters. Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arianna Thapaliya (March 16)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Mcmatter was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rajeshthapaliya! 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! McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello McMatter,

Thank you for reaching out. I appreciate your feedback. Upon reviewing the article draft, I didn't find any content that seemed promotional or offensive. However, I'm eager to ensure that the content aligns with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Could you kindly provide specific details or examples of the content that might not meet Wikipedia's standards? Your insights would be invaluable in helping me make the necessary adjustments to the article.

Thank you for your assistance and guidance.

Best regards,

Rajesh

Arianna's dad and am your regular donor too Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot pay money to violate Wikipedia's rules. Please read what the WP:GAB has to say about donating money or trying to use it as leverage. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is disappointing. I am not suggesting that being a donor grants me special privileges. However, as a nonprofit organization funded by public donations, Wikipedia has a responsibility to operate transparently and fairly.

My primary concern remains the arbitrary decision to block my account without justification. I seek clarity on the basis for this action and why it was deemed necessary to permanently restrict my ability to edit Wikipedia content.

It is concerning that such decisions can be made without proper oversight. Wikipedia serves as a significant educational platform, particularly for students, and thus, transparency and fairness in the process of blocking users are imperative.

I request an explanation from the appropriate authority regarding the individual responsible for blocking my account and revoking editing privileges. An apology and reinstatement of privileges are warranted.

As for Arianna, I remain confident in her talent and abilities. I will ensure that her information is published through appropriate channels in due time. Her potential cannot be stifled, and her achievements will speak for themselves.

My primary concern remains the accountability and fairness of actions taken on this platform. Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Rajeshthapaliya. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Rajeshthapaliya, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

Hello, Rajesh. Please note that I have deleted Draft:Arianna Thapaliya as unambiguous promotion. Above, you asked for "specific details or examples of the content that might not meet Wikipedia's standards". Phrases like "Arianna's determination and creativity shone through", "outstanding scholastic achievements and exemplary conduct", and "resonated with readers globally, earning praise for their creativity, storytelling, and positive messages" are not appropriate for Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not the place to promote anything. Unfortunately, you have created such promotional pages twice already – further attempts to do so may result in a block. I would gently advise you against creating pages about Arianna again, as you may not be able to write about her neutrally. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdrqaz,

Thank you for your message and for providing specific feedback on Draft:Arianna Thapaliya. I apologize for the promotional tone in the previous drafts. I have made revisions to address the issues you raised and have resubmitted the draft for your review. I have ensured that the language used is neutral and informative, focusing solely on presenting factual information about Arianna Thapaliya and her literary endeavors.

I appreciate your guidance on adhering to Wikipedia's standards, and I assure you that I am committed to following them. Should you have any further suggestions or concerns regarding the draft, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards, Rajesh Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Arianna Thapaliya[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Arianna Thapaliya, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion[edit]

Due to your WP:conflict of interest, the promotional nature of your edits, and your lack of awareness of the promotional nature of your edits, you will not be unblocked to write about your daughter or any subject with which you have an outside relationship. This content was deleted three times by three different admins. So hardly arbitrary. To be unblocked, you will need to describe what other topics you would write about. To do so, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}

Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns regarding conflicts of interest and the promotional nature of edits. Allow me to address these points.

While I acknowledge that I have a personal connection to the subject matter, my intention was not to engage in promotional activities but rather to share an inspiring story. I am not a professional editor, nor do I intend to be one. My interest in contributing to Wikipedia stemmed from a desire to showcase my daughter's achievements in a platform that values educational and inspiring content.

Regarding the deletion of the content by three different administrators, I understand that decisions were made based on their interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines. However, I maintain that the blocking of my account was a disproportionate response, especially considering my lack of prior engagement in promotional activities or conflicts of interest.

As for your request for other topics I would be interested in writing about, I am open to exploring various subjects that align with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. However, I must reiterate that my primary concern at this juncture is the resolution of the block on my account.

I am committed to upholding the integrity of Wikipedia and adhering to its policies. Therefore, I will review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks and provide the requested text for consideration.

In conclusion, I urge for a fair and transparent review of the circumstances surrounding the block on my account. I trust that, upon further examination, a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles of fairness and inclusivity will be reached. Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions I have given. Please do not use a generative artificial intelligence system or CHATBot or the like. We want to hear from the person, not a machine. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am real and I use AI to write, what is wrong to use AI to write message? Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reinstate my account and allow editing? I will rewrite about Arianna if you think her accomplishments fit to publish in Wikipedia and inspire other kids to do something by themselves. Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rajeshthapaliya, I was asked by another administrator to look at your contributions. I am going to be blunt; your daughter does not meet our inclusion criteria. Full stop. Articles on Wikipedia require significant coverage in reliable sources (also known as the Golden Rule or GNG). I have done a check, and your daughter does not meet that criteria at this point in time (I was only able to find one article in a local paper). So, a few things to say:

If you want to write about your daughter, use Social Media or other platforms.
If your only purpose on Wikipedia is to edit about your daughter, then you will not be unblocked, because all you will do is write content that gets deleted. If that is not the case, please explain in your unblock request what you will do on Wikipedia to be a productive contributor.
As far as the block itself goes, you were warned (see Special:PermaLink/1213959047#March_2024) that it might happen should you choose to continue to write about your daughter.

Please feel free to ask us any questions if you have them, but also note that if you continue to ignore advice and/or only want to complain about the block itself, your talk page access may be revoked. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. However, I must express my disappointment with the decisions made regarding my account and editing privileges.

First and foremost, I want to clarify that I have no vested interest in whether my daughter's page is included on Wikipedia or not. Whether her page remains on Wikipedia or not is inconsequential; her achievements will speak for themselves, and if they merit inclusion, someone else will undoubtedly add them in due course. Let us refrain from revisiting this topic in our discussions.

My primary inquiry pertains to the abrupt decision to block my account and subsequently restrict my editing privileges. This platform is not private but rather a public resource for trustworthy information. Many individuals, myself included, regularly donate to support this noble cause. However, being labeled as a donor does not equate to relinquishing my right to question actions taken on this platform. As citizens, we have the constitutional right to voice our concerns and expect transparency and fairness in the decisions made.

Furthermore, I am aware that Wikipedia operates with a relatively small team of volunteers. However, the tenure or service duration of these volunteers does not grant them unilateral authority to make decisions that impact users without accountability. We must remember that Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are subject to review and amendment by the appropriate bodies. Threatening to revoke access to my talk page is not only unwarranted but also disrespectful and an affront to my rights as a user.

It is concerning that you are insinuating that my account may be blocked from accessing the talk page if I continue to raise concerns. Such behavior is not conducive to fostering a respectful and open dialogue between users and administrators. Additionally, the dismissal of AI as a valuable tool is perplexing, considering its potential to enhance efficiency and accuracy on this platform.

As for the request to provide justification for future editing activities, I must question the necessity of such a requirement. Have I committed any wrongdoing in the past? Have I disseminated false information or engaged in spamming activities? These questions merit consideration before imposing restrictions on users.

In conclusion, I reiterate my request to reinstate my editing access. I am approaching this matter with the utmost seriousness, and I will not rest until a satisfactory resolution is reached. No individual, regardless of their position, has the authority to impede the constitutional rights of others. If such actions persist on Wikipedia, it is imperative that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the accountability and integrity of the platform's governance.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely, Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were legitimately blocked. I think there are at least five admins now who have confirmed that. You were spamming content about your daughter (and I use "spamming" in this sense to indicate "repeated attempts to write a promotional article about her despite being warned not to continue"), were warned to stop, and did not stop.

Given that your reply is written by an AI I am not going to engage further. Write your own appeal in your own words or your talk page access will be revoked; our time to waste on people who don't listen isn't infinite. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go a head and block this converstion too, remember this is not your company to act like this, there is a system, no one is above law. Siting in one room and using lap top if you want to make this decision, you are free to do so, I never seen such pathetic team who think my way or highway, you are living in the bubble , you are free to do so. Remember wikipedia is using public fund, how can it support like these admin who want to shut down user voice. Last joke for you, Wiki it self use AI and you are asking me not to use AI, the biggest joke i ever heard. All 5 admin should be banned to be a admin or at least they need training to be an admin. This is global village, live in harmony, being wki admin is not end of world, not sure what have these 5 people create in their life, would be interesting to know. Have you created anything in your whole life? Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, you are perilously close to violating our policy against making legal threats. I will carry this paragraph and the next to last one to the the admin noticeboard, which is the better way. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ADMINACCT demand from Rajeshthapaliya -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you were given to understand by someone at the WMF that your donations entitled you to create an article, then you need to take it up with that someone. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.