User talk:Leoaugust

Welcome!

Hello, Leoaugust, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I've brought this back to ANI again and mentioned you, so you may want to drop in there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raheja Developers

Dear Leoaugust, in reference to your following edits [1], [2], please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where information is added based on the verifiability and not as per one-person's opinion. Please refrain from removing any such contents which is enclyclopedic to the article and has been added with references. Also, to answer you, all the failure aspects are mentioned. The history section will just document a series of activities that the organisation has gone through so far. For any reference, refer any other organisation related articles in Wikipedia. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If something never took off, how can it be history? The slum redevelopment project is dead. Not a single brick has been laid. How that that be a part of history of RDL? Just getting the contract is history, and you don't have to worry about what it has done in 5 years? Why are you removing everything that updates the page. Leoaugust (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also why are you repeating that it was incorporated in 1990? You undid even such a basic edit? Leoaugust (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that tries to update rose-colored glass views with updates on sourced information, you just remove it. It seems that you consider promises and PR releases as worthy of being on the company profile, and any update about the failed reality as something to delete. Keep adding your stuff, but why do you delete other's updates? Leoaugust (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leoaugust, thanks for your contribution so far. What I'm concerned is that the tone of the article. Please refer any organisational articles and work accordingly. Also, note that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Also replies to your answer: 1. Not sure, I just represented what is mentioned in the news article. 2) That is because in the history section, it has to say when and how did the organisation come up. Remember, lead section is just a summary. 3) I have kept all the contents that was properly sourced, by what I mean is a reliable source. If you feel by any chance I have hurt your sentiments, I shall refrain my contris hereon. It doesn't matters as they are many random articles I need to focus on. In case you need any help, shall be able to help. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ♪Karthik♫. You are inadvertently removing the work of many editors, and giving a false promotional tone to the page. Builders have made many lofty promises and announcements, but after 5 to 7 years it is not fair to keep repeating those announcements without providing context to what happened after those announcements/promises. And it is inexplicable as to why you would repeatedly remove the court cause-list of over 13 cases (as of March 03, 2015) against Raheja Developers. Your help is very welcome, and we definitely don't claim ownership on the page ... but let us collaboratively work to make the true tone emerge, rather than forcing a tone. Please add your old articles, but let the updates that others make on those old articles stand. That is all we ask for. Leoaugust (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leoaugust, please note that I'm not removing any content that is properly sourced. I agree with whatever mentioned (just because they are properly referenced), neither I know the organisation nor should I. I'm sure, with time, you'll understand why I'm removing the content. Wil admin the reason now: Content, should always be sourced with a reliable secondary source. Just an example: if BBC or CNN or even TOI says that Raheja Developers has xx cases registered with xxx, that can be considered as strong source. However, the link you have added is more like a search engine reference. Thus, my objection, nothing else. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫

it seems you have some personal enmity with this Raheja developer that is why you are talking against this builder? you must have invested in any of its project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appmarch (talk • contribs) 05:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The facts stand by themselves, and try to avoid being personal. No one is attacking the personal life of the builder or his employees, and all aspects brought to the fore are which are to do with this builder's corrupt and fraudulent business practices. -Leoaugust (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Raheja Developers. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 July 2015

Hi I am Aarvig. I have deleted one of the links, that you are again and again doing UNDO. I would like to mention that the links are not about Raheja Developers but about Real Estate firms. You are mentioning that Raheja Developers is one of the company of real estate firms but this thing you know and this information is not at all present in the reference links. So please stop adding unnecessarily any news. In Wikipedia information is based on actual facts and news, not on your personal basis.--Aarvig (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aarvig. The simple question is whether Raheja Developers is being investigated by CBDT or not? The answers is definitely yes, and it is because Raheja Developers is one of the 35 companies stung by Cobrapost. So, your justification for removing the link is hard for us to understand. Please explain a little more as to why the CBDT investigation against Raheja Developers (which was one of the 35 companies stung by Cobrapost) is not relevant, and we would happily let your edit stay. The list of companies being investigated by Central Board of Direct Taxes (India's Apex Body) is given below and involves Raheja Developers. Leoaugust (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of companies being investigated by CBDT is here http://www.cobrapost.com/index.php/news-detail?nid=7299&cid=64 The 35 companies that Cobrapost investigated in Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad, Jaipur, Lucknow, Mumbai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Kochi are Ajnara India Ltd, Earth Infrastructures Ltd, Mahagun Group, Prateek Group, Sarvottam Group, Lakhani Builders Pvt Ltd, Lodha Group, Kanchhal Group, Raheja Developers, Shalimar Corporation Ltd, Geoworks Realty Pvt Ltd, Investors Forum India, SVP Builders (I) Ltd, Rajput Properties & Developers Pvt Ltd, International Land Developers Pvt Ltd, Fortune Infra Developers Pvt Ltd, Manglam Build-Developers Ltd, Godawari Developers, Rudra Buildwell Projects Pvt Ltd, Shri Group, Plus Projects Pvt Ltd, RG Group, ABW Infrastructure Ltd, Alpine Housing Development Corporation Ltd, Antriksh Group, National Builders, Okay Plus Builders & Developers, Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt Ltd, Bamatech, Archies Projects Pvt Ltd, Asten Realtors Pvt Ltd, Vibgyor Housing Ltd, Travancore Builders Pvt Ltd, Vedic Realty Pvt Ltd and Concorde Group. The combined turnover of these companies—spread across Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka—would run into thousands of crores.

So why don't you mention more links also. May be Raheja Developers are going through other challenges also and there might be certain more cases that they are fighting but that does not mean all those should be mentioned in Wikipedia.--Aarvig (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite rude, and strange. If you know of other links about ongoing investigations, please add them. If they are relevant they will find a lasting place on the wikipage. Leoaugust (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Mr RD 16:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin resolution

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr RD 11:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Will you please acknowledge that you have real world disputes with Rajeha. You can say something like: "Like many other people, I have real world disputes with Raheja and his companies." How is that? Jytdog (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jytdog (talk) I can do that. Thanks. Leoaugust (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Like many other people, I have real world disputes with Raheja and his companies. Leoaugust (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I am comfortable going forward now. Because you have real world disputes with them, you have a COI here in Wikipedia. I am going to add a "connected contributor" tag to the Raheja Developers page. That will complete the disclosure part of this discussion.

There are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure, which is now done. The second is what I call "peer review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:Raheja Developers - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. I hope that makes sense to you. And I know you will be watching talk page suggestions by other conflicted editors, and for new SOCKS that emerge that try to edit the article directly. That will be a huge help to everybody.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review process? Thanks again for your patience with me. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jytdog (talk), I agree to the Peer Review Process for the Raheja Developers Page. Leoaugust (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gorgeous. OK, i look forward to seeing you back at the articles. Thank you so, so much for your patience. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog (talk), and appreciate your patience & guidance. Best wishes. Leoaugust (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sitush (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]