User talk:DRajkhowa

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello DRajkhowa! Your additions to Engineers India have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello DRajkhowa. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:DRajkhowa. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=DRajkhowa|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I certify that I am not being paid for these posts. Wherever possible I have tried to provide citations to establish authenticity of the content. I am a new user that's why edits may not be very professional but there is absolutely no payment angle here. Pl let me now if more clarification is required. --DRajkhowa (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Dickpal Rajkhowa (DRajkhowa)[reply]

Hello, DRajkhowa, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Rajiv Nair EIL (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, both myself and Rajiv Nair are different individuals. We have worked independently on this page to improve it. There is absolutely no question of one person using multiple accounts. You may pl note that effort has been made to write content in a objective way while also providing citations. --DRajkhowa (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC) DRajkhowa[reply]

January 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Engineers India) for Undisclosed COI editing at Engineers India.

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 ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been trying to improve the EIL Wiki page because for years nobody has done anything about this. I am willing to disclose required details as per COI guidelines of Wikipedia. Even the edits I have made, I have tried to keep them as mater-of-fact as possible using only bullet points and citations wherever applicable. Kindly take my efforts only as an attempt to build a decent Wiki page since the page had remained stagnant for so long.

Decline reason:

No such disclosure has been made, nor do you seem to understand fully why your edits were inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2022 (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.