User talk:Iqbal1184

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Iqbal1184. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Deana Uppal, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
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 must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it besides just in edit summaries as you did here. 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:Iqbal1184. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Iqbal1184|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 (you should use WP:Edit requests on the articles talk page if you are editing beyond removing vandalism or copyediting though). Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Deana Uppal ‎, you may be blocked from editing. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS decline

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Iqbal1184 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #28544 was submitted on 2020-01-16 17:57:51. This review is now closed.

-- Deep fried okra 23:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian admin

I'll pass that along. However, the one edit I looked at was unsourced. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."-- Deep fried okra 23:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Have we any Indian/india-knowledgeable admins?-- Deep fried okra 23:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Vanamonde93, and Abecedare: to be going on with. And we have the greatly knowledgeable non-admin Sitush. Bishonen | talk 01:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks.. @Iqbal1184: you can discuss your concerns from the UTRS ticket here with them.-- Deep fried okra 02:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, user would like their block reviewed by those with knowledge of India.-- Deep fried okra 02:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I took a quick look. I see nothing here that requires specialized knowledge. The language this user used was severly promotional. I would not accept any unblock request that did not explicitly acknowledge the problems with this language and demonstrate an understanding of how to do better. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the UTRS ticket he claims not to be spamming but correcting incorrect information.

@Iqbal1184:, you were blocked not for correcting information but for adding promotional content. As for "correcting incorrect information, "all content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking.". Disagreements related to content and sourcing are discussed on the article talk page.That was not the problem addressed by your block.

A quick glance at your talk page shows previous problems with conflict of interest and promotional editing. As you stated you "handle Deana's Social Media," you have been asked to read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID. Apparently you did not.. Your edits on Anu Aggarwal were reverted as they were promotional. My inference is that you have been engaged by Anu Aggarwal to handle her social media. If I am correct, please read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID..

Please address these concerns here on our talk page. Thanks, -- Deep fried okra 05:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]