User talk:Dvasports

November 2019

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit requests at Talk:Surinder Amarnath: I have placed a request on the conflict of interest noticeboard to get additional help and input from experienced editors about this article. You can find the discussion here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Surinder Amarnath, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Amarnath was on the 1969 test side. You have been, to this point, unwilling or unable to provide reliable sources, so the information must stay out. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Surinder Amarnath. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. It is absolutely inappropriate to edit a page based on "Being closely associated I know all the details of his life well" —C.Fred (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Surinder Amarnath. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Surinder Amarnath. Dee 03 20:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all , this is not my personal analysis , my father being Captain of a first class team definitely cannot be my fantasy .. it’s the truth and that’s what I have added on the article with proper published proof .. the delhi cricket association recently held a function and felicitated all former captains of delhi first class cricket . My father too was felicitated due to the same reason . I shared the published proof with you .. you could check it up in google as I told you .

However , going on threatening me over blocking shows that you think Wikipedia is your property ... you must have a solid reason to even mention this blocking thing because I haven’t violated any norm or policy of Wikipedia .. I have given you proofs as you wanted . So next time kindly use a polite language that befits the Wikipedia community . Dvasports (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have in fact violated multiple Wikipedia policies. Conflict of interest editors should not edit the affected article directly. You have been asked more than once to provide a published source as citation for each of your edits but you continue inserting unsourced material. In addition to these, you have issued an indirect legal threat to an editor. Dee 03 22:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well , as far as the threat is concerned .. it was a warning not a threat as things were damaging my fathers reputation which I previously mentioned ..

Secondly you will have to help me with the citation .. I gave u the headline “ delhi stalwarts felicitated at star studded function “ the Hindu newspaper Dvasports (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there ?? Dvasports (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a conflict of interest

Hello, Dvasports. 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} 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 WP:Spam);
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.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above, please ensure you are using the article talk page to make your edit request and cease editing the article itself directly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Kinu ^t/_c 21:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is this nonsense ? How can you block me ? Wikipedia isn’t your private property .. I have given proper sources for any changes that I made the latest edit had a whole List of references .. Dvasports (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

There was no reason for me to be blocked because as per the advise of other Wikipedia editors and administrators i provided the exact link and description of the references depending on which the edits were made. Secondly , they are real life incidents which have happened in a persons life . That person happens to be my father and in no way can I allow anyone to disrupt his reputation. The changes that I made are factual and real life events , the proof of which I gave in the form of references as demanded by other editors . The references are published material of reputed media channels as required by the editors . Even then , I was shocked to see that my account has been blocked without any valid reason Dvasports (talk)

Decline reason:

You show no understanding of WP:COI and how inappropriate you've been. Your comment below, "this dictatorial behaviour is condemned", shows you fundamentally have no place on Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 12:13, 13 January 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.

The problem is precisely that you are editing your father's article. You have a conflict of interest. You should not directly edit the article of any party with whom you have a conflict of interest. Your past behaviour has led other editors to say more strongly that you may not edit his article. However, you have carried in making the same problematic edits. Unless you can demonstrate that you are able and willing to comply with Wikipedia policies, including WP:COI, you will not be unblocked.

Frankly, I would not unblock you unless you agreed to a ban that restricted you from editing any article about Indian cricket or its players, but that allowed you to request edits on the talk pages of those articles. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look it’s simple , I have no interest in disrupting edits .. my point is when something is a fact why aren’t a couple of editors on Wikipedia receptive to it ? Is it a crime to point out some truth ? Especially when I have you the references you wanted . Dvasports (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's likewise simple that you may not edit the Surinder Amarnath article. What you should have done was add the link to to Talk:Surinder Amarnath for editors to review. I had seen the prior link, but it was vague enough about the term of Amarnath's captaincy of Delhi that it was hard to integrate into the prose. Your last changes again added excess material that was not readily sourced, and they included major formatting errors (although those are pretty easy to fix).

The other key point is that to go in an article, it doesn't just have to be a fact: it has to be a verifiable fact. Vague claims to have confirmed information with the BCCI, when they have no published records, are not acceptable, verifiable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DDCA function itself was held only for former players who captained delhi . I have a communication from DDCA regarding the same but there is no option to share pictures and mails here :. The best possible verifiable source I had I shared with you .. at least there has to be trust not on me but on a reputed news paper who’s link I shared .. plus there was this second link which also showed how my father scored a century on Test debut along with captaining the All India Schools Test Team & this was published in all major newspapers .. one of the links I shared with you Dvasports (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly who the hell is Kinu ? He edits about Texas highways etc and doesn’t know shit about Cricket. He had no business to block me .. this dictatorial behaviour is condemned. Dvasports (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly unblock and take appropriate action. Dvasports (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've already taken the appropriate action, as can be seen by your block log. --Yamla (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinu is an administrator who is very familiar with policies including WP:COI and WP:RS. It is certainly his business to block an editor who is disrupting an article.

Further, Wikipedia policies prohibit users from proxy editing for blocked editors. We aren't going to talk about changes to the article at this time, or what the major newspapers reported about Test debuts and the like. Instead, you need to convince us that you understand and will agree to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines—including the ones that restrict users from editing their relatives' articles. Until you can do that, you are effectively locked out from even discussions on the content of the Amarnath article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want me not to edit directly citing conflict of interest , it’s fine .. but do not tell me not to mention facts about my fathers life because the one who has written the article has discarded major facts of his life and has presented him in a manner which is degrading his reputation which obviously as a family member I won’t tolerate no matter who the editor is .. which is why I have been making repeated attempts to show you the “ published proofs” on which you can depend on as the proofs are not published by me nor by any Wikipedia editor but by editors of reputed media channels world wide who are far more qualified and knowledgeable than your so called Wikipedia editors. The journalists as we would call them , are the ones who have a lot of experience and have been following every news to its roots due to which they write articles which definitely have to be reliable.

But instead of acknowledging the effort that I put into gathering information or I should say “ published information” , there is still a lot of resistance among you guys which is the sad part. Secondly , if we talk about kinu - he must be aware about Wikipedia’s policies but he surely isn’t aware of “ Cricket” and isn’t aware of world records and the players at large which is why he has no business to block me for I have presented only the truth and nothing else . I also , as per your advice gave you the proper references for your referral but still had to see that my account has been blocked is disappointing. Dvasports (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth" is not an excuse for running roughshod over WP:COI by continuing to add unsourced or ill-sourced material to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The material Is not unsourced or ill sourced. It has been published a number of times after the event has happened. Secondly , if a publication by renowned media houses is ill sourced or unsourced or poorly sourced , kindly guide me as to what is a perfectly sourced material that you are looking for and where will it be available .. I’ll try and get it for your referral . Dvasports (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit cited one source, which did not mention the captaincy of Delhi. However, the underlying issue is that you should not be editing the article, period. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True , the function itself was held only for former captains of Delhi Forst class team and not for all former players. Now if you read the article properly it is mentioned that the function was also held to honour former delhi captains and it did mention Mr Surinder Amarnath .. that’s what I have been saying .. open your eyes and see .. you will find what I stated Dvasports (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The news18 article made no mention of either the function nor his captaincy. The other source did, but then it becomes a matter of how to mention that he was captain during some unspecified period of time while he was with Delhi. Presumably it wasn't his whole career, but it was at least one (or both) years they won that cup. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now , with all that we have discussed I hope you realise that my o my intention is to bring out facts and provide the necessary references. Incase conflict of interest is an issue , I am fine by prising changes on the talk page - but you have to assure me that - you will be more receptive towards the points put forward with an open mind . Incase the points put forward are true or “ verifiable” then they should be put up in a proper manner. After all I’m sure Wikipedia doesn’t exist to degrade anyone’s reputation. Then things like publications newspapers media channels are not authentic shouldn’t arise. Incase , you feel media houses aren’t reliable you will have to explain to me what exactly you are looking for or which source would you call as “ verifiable” in your dictionary. Dvasports (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, whatever your intentions, it has been difficult to get you to actually comply with Wikipedia policies. It took weeks, if not months, to get you to present a reliable published source for being captain of Delhi. (And still, the source is vague, as it doesn't indicate what years he was captain, so it's hard to integrate into the article.) Wikipedia exists to present a neutral and verifiably accurate presentation of subjects. Neutrality implies we don't care how it affects the reputation of the subject; instead, we want it to be neutral and accurate. That's why we discourage COI edits: those editors tend to have a stake in the reputation of the subject (usually toward the positive) and thus tend not to be able to maintain neutrality in their edits. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your previous question -

Please read the article of sportstar Hindu and you would be able to find that veteran delhi Ranji captains were honoured as I feel you have already found it though.

So for all players who play first class or international cricket - each one first plays as a player and then later in the career goes on to become the teams captain if at all it has to happen. There will be no player who in his whole career would captain a team.

That’s why I mentioned like it’s mentioned for other players “ He captained Delhi in first class cricket” .

Secondly the news 18 article was to highlight the fact that Surinder Amarnath did score a century on Test debut and he was also captain of the All India Schools Test Team as in those days countries had only two teams - the senior Test team and the All country Schools Test team . The news 18 article was for you to verify this

Dvasports (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can Being Neutral always be accurate ? In this case itself , if you consider the article - many facts have been ignored.

Secondly , “ we don’t care how it affects the reputation of the subject” sounds a bit unpleasant. That’s fine if you do not have verifiable sources. But if there are sources it doesn’t matter when it happened in time - the fact is a particular event happened & that’s what should be added to the content because not every article or publication is always going to mention timeline in his editorials. Dvasports (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly , you don’t need to know what year he was captain of delhi . The fact that he captained delhi itself means he is a former Delhi First Class captain. If for example - you do not know when a player made his international debut incase he has only played one match - would u mention him as a domestic Cricketer instead of an international cricketer ? That’s vague and poor editing in my view. The fact is that a particular player played for his country and that needs a mention of you are writing about him - doesn’t matter wether u know the dates or not. The important thing is to mention the event - that’s called being neutral . Dvasports (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments above reveal to me that you have not grasped the policies relating to conflict of interest, neutral point of view, and reliable sources. Accordingly, I suggest you spent some time reading them. Additionally, I feel that any further content-related discussions will only hurt your chances for being unblocked. I am stepping away from this page. I don't think you need to wait the full six months of the WP:Standard offer, but I suggest you wait some time before making any further unblock requests. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you that incase you don’t won’t me to edit directly citing conflict of interest , it’s fine .. I was just trying to explain to you the content available on the Internet. I do have real newspaper cuttings but whatever is avialable on the net s what I present to you to k ow that what I’m talking is not fictious or imaginary . I would again ask you to unblock me as there’s a lot of discussion to be done on the talk page Dvasports (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been wrongly misunderstood and blocked. My attempt to highlight facts to various global editors has been misunderstood by a couple of editiors. If you see the edit history you will notice that I have provided all the links and references to whatever changes I made in any article. I haven’t violated any policy of Wikipedia and I do not intend to do so as well. A number of times I have proposed changes on the talk page and many a times I haven’t got any reply from anyone under which circumstances I edited the article myself but with proper references. C.Fred asked me to provide those references which took my a lot of time to collect, I shared them in my edit history. Wikipedia is a platform where being biased or un-neutral is not the right way forward , also it’s articles are reliable based on facts. Some of these facts are available on the net while some are not. Therefore it is the responsibility of us editors to bring out whatever is available in the form of references so that the article can move on to the next level and transform into being connected to facts rather than being connected to facts mixed with fiction Dvasports (talk)

Decline reason:

With the discussion above, edits such as this one and this unblock request, it is clear that you have a strong conflict of interest, that it has led you to make inappropriate edits, and that you see nothing wrong with your conduct. Thus I have to decline this request. Huon (talk) 01:03, 20 January 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.

There may be conflict of interest but there isn’t any harm in bringing about the truth in front of fellow editors. Incase you want to decline the unblock request so be it .. But please delete my fathers page from your site .. your useless site has no business to put half facts about any personality & incase you don’t oblige now I shall consider legal options .. and yes if you consider this is legal threat .. It is!! Wikipedia is not your fathers property nor anyone else’s that you can dictate terms like this .. bloody nonsense .. Dvasports (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Talk page access revoked. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]