User talk:Gurumaa Vani

Welcome!

Hello, Gurumaa Vani, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Anandmurti Gurumaa, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! GPL93 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Anandmurti Gurumaa

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 Draft:Anandmurti Gurumaa, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. GPL93 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are still in the process of substantiating this draft with authentic and genuine references. If you think that we untimely published it(without adding references), we can try again with proper references. Please guide@GPL93 Gurumaa Vani (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are still in the process of substantiating this draft with authentic and genuine references. If you think that we untimely published it(without adding references), we can try again with proper references. Please guide@Bbb23 Gurumaa Vani (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gurumaa Vani/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DoubleGrazing, Thanks for your insight.

As suggested, additional references meeting the criteria have been added. Request you to please review the draft and accept the changes. Your suggestions are certainly welcome and will go a long way in helping us improve.

Thanks and Regards, Gurumaa Vani (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gurumaa Vani! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gurumaa Vani/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DoubleGrazing, Thanks for your prompt response.

Once again, as per your suggestion, have made all the required changes that meet the neutral wikipedia guidlines and also removed all peacock words. If you still find any room for changes, request you to please make the changes or let us know. We are open to accept and make all possible changes required to get the draft accepted.

Regards, Gurumaa Vani (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Gurumaa Vani. 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, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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. This is regarding Anandmurti Gurumaa. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Paul sachudhanandam per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul sachudhanandam. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:22, 9 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia team, I appreciate your concern. However, first of all - I do not know Paul at all.

Please note that the article that I am working on is on a ‘spiritual leader’ who has millions of followers.

When I see that there is no Wikipedia page for such a notable leader, it only make me go out and make effort. Similarly, it must be making many followers follow the suit, every now and then.

In fact, being a novice, it took me a while to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines and write an authentic and acceptable article wherein I was highly supported by @TechnoSquirrel69.

To the extent that it is now ready to be published.

During this process, he stated in the chat(link mentioned below) - that I am using reliable references for this notable subject which will go a long way in supporting this article. He even mentioned that ‘whether or not the draft should be accepted is a question of the content, not the editor’.

Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MER-C#About_Anandmurti_Gurumaa

I therefore request you to please unblock my account and unprotect the subject ‘Anandmurti Gurumaa’.

Your help will go a long way in letting millions of people reach Wikipedia to read the article about 'Anandmurti Gurumaa' and further add their respective contributions.

Thanks & Regards,

Decline reason:

It could be that this is more properly called meat puppetry rather than sock puppetry, though it is treated the same. If you want to tell the world about this spiritual leader, you should use social media or your personal website, not Wikipedia. As others have been blocked for editing about him, anyone who tries will be blocked as well. Part of being unblocked will probably require you to agree to abandon editing about this individual and tell us what you will edit about instead. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thanks for your revert. I completely agree with you and respect the policies of Wikipedia. In fact, I am very impressed with the authentic way Wikipedia is working in a neutral way. I do not have any personal motive in publishing her(anandmurti gurumaa) profile on Wikipedia. However, having interest in religion and looking at the profile of other Indian spiritual leaders(like Sadhguru, Ravi Shankar(spiritual leader), Brahma Kumaris to name a few) on Wikipedia, I got inspired to pick her profile. And once again, I have no relation whatsoever with Paul/Manan. Having said that, I look forward to your support in guiding me as to what I need to do to reinstate this profile since I have worked very hard to meet the wiki standards and policies. Like every issue has a solution, I am ready to abide by whatever you say or suggest and even edit the draft, even if it means publishing the least amount of content with reliable and authentic citations. Look forward to a positive response and solution, Warm Regards,

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. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2024 (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.