User talk:Hardeep.pathak

File permission problem with File:Preity Zinta as in her Twitter DP.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Preity Zinta as in her Twitter DP.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb[edit]

DO not use IMDb as source. It is not reliable as per WP:UGC. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to leave the same message. Read WP:CITEIMDB, it's got some additional information. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, Fylindfotberserk and Ravensfire, thanks for informing. Hardeep.pathak (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:Hardeep.pathak. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Hardeep.pathak|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above.

I've posted this notice because you refer to we and you are required to state if you are editing on behalf of an organisation. Also, you can't post drafts of someone's talk page, create it as a proper draft article. The content you posted doesn't show how the company meets our notability criteria, tells us nothing about the company except what it sells and some at least of the refs are not independent third party sources. One example is that the FT article is quoting the lawyers involved in the case Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply User:Jimfbleak. I have disclosed the relevant details in my userpage as instructed. Kindly guide me how I can take this further in order to publish the page.

Secondly, the FT article talks about the lawyers definitely, that's why I have put 3 sources for that sentence and all the sources talk about the technology which was developed by Knovos. The lawyers received the award only for the technology which is described in the sourced articles.

I have also provided references for each sentence and they are all third-party sources. However, do let me know if you think there is a scope of improvement to make the tone more neutral and to improve the notability. Also, guide me how I can create a draft for approval. Thank you in anticipation. Hardeep.pathak (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC) 05:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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/A23101990, 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

1. Conflict of Interest has already been declared as required. 2. I do not use multiple accounts. 3. I was blocked for requesting an admin editor to unblock the company page for Knovos. I am aware of sockpuppetry on this page but that was over 2 years back and not by me. I have created a perfect draft for them that meets the WP notability guidelines with enough credible third party sources. I just wasn't sure of the process on how to apply for the same and hence requested the managing admin. I am ready to adhere by the WP terms and fight this case ethically. Let me know. Hardeep.pathak (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:09, 11 February 2020 (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.