User talk:Akshaytherock

February 2015

Hello, I'm Babitaarora. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Sargun Mehta, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. Babita arora 07:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaytherock, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Akshaytherock! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Akshaytherock. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sargun Mehta, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Last but not least: All contributors must not contribute content that violates conflict of interest laws (just as all contributors must respect copyright). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is valid throughout the European Union. In a German court decision in 2012 (that also relied on the directive) regarding Wikipedia: "The court held that when a company edits a Wikipedia article, the resulting text falsely creates the impression that the edit has no business-related purpose. By implication, the judges found that the average reader of Wikipedia articles expects to find objective and neutral information." That is a very very important condition, comparable to the FTC Guide" that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser”. This expectation by consumers of neutral information on Wikipedia, requires that companies not write "their" WP articles for PR/marketing purposes.

Editors who are compensated for their contributions should make the disclosure by placing the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page of affected articles and filling in the parameters. They should also supply this information as part of a list on their user page of all their paid contributions.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. You get this message since I noticed both that all you do on Wikipedia is edit articles related to Sargun Mehta, and that you repeatedly add excessive, and promotional, details to Sargun Mehta, as if to promote the subject of the article. Thomas.W ^talk 16:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: a GA reviewer removing content, that is exist in GA/FA's article, so i asked to reviewer in article's talkpage so please do not revert without discuss about it. Akshaytherock (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Sargun Mehta shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thomas.W ^talk 16:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: i don't want to start editwar so please wait. Akshaytherock (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

It is clear that you are not here to edit collaboratively. Rather, you are here to promote a certain topic and when it doesn't go your way you indulge in pointy behavior such as this. If you do not wish to edit collaboratively, you don't have to edit here, that's your choice. But any further disruption in the form of edit warring or pointy behavior is going to get you blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 17:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: Maybe autoconfirmed privileges should be withdrawn until the editwarring stops? — Brianhe (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]