User talk:Applus2021

                                               Discussions on my wikipedia Contributions
                               In recent times i am spending more time on wiki editing, ping me on essentials

Applus2021 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I noticed that in this edit to Software Industry in Haryana, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editing the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Applus2021 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whats going on?[edit]

Can you explain the bare URL you introduced in this edit: [1] as www/dot/shriramgateway/dot/com on port 780 seems usurped? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, Replaced with important original reliable sources [2], [3]] Applus2021 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Applus2021: You've said what you've done to fix it. You have not explained what or why was the issue in the first place. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's a old website of Shreem gateway SEZ, now not working. Replaced with WP:RELIABLE sources to meet WP:GNG. Applus2021 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Gupta (academic) moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Sachin Gupta (academic), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 21:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sachin Gupta (academic)[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 Sachin Gupta (academic) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. DJRSD (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sachin Gupta (academic) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sachin Gupta (academic) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Gupta (academic) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DJRSD (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

You were asked to declare your conflict of interest earlier but you just deleted the post. It is clear that you are here editing for pay, and are representing OMICS. OMICS representatives are community banned, and if this continues, your account will be blocked too. —SpacemanSpiff 17:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am an independent IT/ITeS employee works with government and STPI, my profession is not OMICS field and not paid by anyone. My profession is software, business marketing linked with desktop e-publishing. Applus2021 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Software industry in Tamil Nadu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPO. 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) 05:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 05:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that you are doing promotional editing on behalf of community banned OMICS and are refusing to acknowledge that or follow the policies surrounding that. Irrespective of COI policies, representatives of OMICS are community banned. —SpacemanSpiff 05:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spaceman, please unblock my account

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).

Applus2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am randomly editing the pages Applus2021 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't believe you, and even if I did, your mere promise is insufficient. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

. SpacemanSpiff Applus2021 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're doing promotional editing for OMICS among others, while for the others you refuse to follow COI guidelines and policies, editing on behalf of OMICS has been banned by the community. —SpacemanSpiff 07:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spaceman, sorry for mistake if anything was happened. Here with i am confirming that i will not edit any pages of OMICS related community banned. Please excuse for this time and unblock my account. Sincerely, Applus2021 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff Applus2021 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC) SpacemanSpiff Dear Dear Spaceman, 331dot Applus2021 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

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).

Applus2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock my account. The account was blocked because of random edit by some banned article page. After unblock, If you find another banned site edit please block forever. Please believe me and re-check the block and unblock the account. Applus2021 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Stop pinging me, I have said what I need to -- I am not unblocking you, someone else will review any future unblock requests. Also, if you keep making frivolous unblock requests, it is likely that your ability to edit this talk page will also be revoked.—SpacemanSpiff 11:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

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).

Applus2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock my account. The account was blocked because of random edit by some banned article page. I am herewith confirming that 1. I do understand the reason for blocking, i will not edit those banned site again

2. I am here with confirming that, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption 3. I will make useful contributions, which will be useful to readers. Applus2021 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for a "random edit". And I don't even understand what a "banned article page" is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sir,

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).

Applus2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock my account. The account was blocked because of editing Software Technology Parks of India, Pulsus Group, OMICS (journal), OMICS Publishing Group, and nomination of Allied Academies [[4]] and Draft:Sachin Gupta (academic). I am herewith confirming that 1. I do understand the reason for blocking, i will not edit those banned sites again 2. I am here with confirming that, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption 3. I will make useful contributions, which will be useful to readers. Applus2021 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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) 14:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please clarify your precise relationship with OMICS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸, I am not having any financial or working relationship with OMICS or any organization/company with reference to wikipedia editing. Applus2021 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Applus2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock my account. The account was blocked because of editing Software Technology Parks of India, Pulsus Group, OMICS (journal), OMICS Publishing Group, and nomination of Allied Academies [[5]] and Draft:Sachin Gupta (academic). I am herewith confirming that

1. I do understand the reason for blocking, i will not edit those banned site again.

2. I am here with confirming that, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption

3. I will make useful contributions, which will be useful to wikipedia readers. I sincerely request to unblock my account. Applus2021 (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No compelling reason to unblock at this time. Further unblock requests that do not address the content of past edits (i.e. that explain why you chose to make those edits and why they were improper) should be met with a talk-page block. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Applus2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock my account. The account was blocked because of editing Software Technology Parks of India, Pulsus Group, OMICS (journal), OMICS Publishing Group, and nomination of Allied Academies [[6]] and Draft:Sachin Gupta (academic).

Why I choose to make those edits: I have edited about 79+ pages, created 23+ new pages and unaware of above five pages conditions. A wikipedia admin notified those five pages editing is restricted. I am also not aware of those restrictions, as those restrictions were not displayed at those pages.

I am herewith confirming that

1. I do understand the reason for blocking, i will not edit those banned site again.

2. I am here with confirming that, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption

3. I will make useful contributions, which will be useful to wikipedia readers. I sincerely request to unblock my account. Applus2021 (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed deletion of Onkologia i Radioterapia[edit]

The article Onkologia i Radioterapia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Catalolgue-like entry for non-notable journal (see also WP:NJOURNALS). No evidence of significance, coverage, or impact.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

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 why you should be 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Software Industry in Uttar Pradesh[edit]

Hello, Applus2021. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Software Industry in Uttar Pradesh, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.