User talk:Maharashtramera

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Suresh Kalmadi, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. Please note that all text added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and properly referenced.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! The Discoverer (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anan suren (talk • contribs) 11:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Suresh Kalmadi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Suresh Kalmadi. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the use of the word "vandalize" above was appropriate, as I do not see your editing as vandalism. Nevertheless, apart from the issues mentioned above, there are at least three other problems with your editing at Suresh Kalmadi.

The content that you have posted is copied largely, and perhaps entirely, from various other web pages. For example, I have found text that you have posted on such pages as http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-five-things-i-like-about-suresh-kalmadi.htm, http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/aug/24/kalmadi-isnt-the-only-one-to-blame-for-cwg-mess.htm, http://qbtpl.net/skalmadi_OLD/html/pune_sports.htm, and others. You cannot simply copy content from other places, as doing so infringes copyright.
What you have posted is not written from a neutral point of view, as required for Wikipedia articles. Instead, it blatantly promotes opinions.
You have removed valid sourced content from other contributors, without giving any explanation. Wikipedia works by collaboration, and if you believe that there are good reasons for removing content, then you need to explain those reasons, so that other editors can assess whether they agree with your reasons. However, if you only purpose in editing is to create a glowing account of Suresh Kalmadi, telling the world how wonderful he is, then Wikipedia is not the right place to do so, and you would be better off posting somewhere else. Persistent editing for promotional purposes can lead to being blocked from editing, as can copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest and Ownership

Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not a method of promotion, nor a form of Social Media. People who are directly involved in a subject should not be editing articles about that subject, but may suggest properly-sourced edits on that article's talkpage. At no time may the subject or their representatives claim ownership over an article, nor may they suggest that their edits be accepted over any others. Obviously, someone related to the subject can rarely edit with a neutral point of view, and have trouble removing themselves from promotional aspects. The short version: if you're related to Suresh Kalmadi in any manner, you should not be editing their article directly ES &L 12:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message

Hello, Maharashtramera. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Suresh Kalmadi (MP)

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Suresh Kalmadi (MP). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Suresh Kalmadi. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Suresh Kalmadi – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, infringing numerous policies and guidelines, most notably using Wikipedia only for promotional purposes, and persistent copyright infringements. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Mr. Administrator, the contribution made by you to Wikipedia community is adorable. I am a new user who stepped into the world of Wikipedia. I want to justify my content edition up to an extent. When I saw this page of Suresh Kalmadi, it seemed to miss many corners that should be lighted for sure. Now I am not talking of any type of so called SOCIAL MEDIA. Because there are many facts that needs to be highlighted on the same page. Many of the references that are given in the old Suresh Kalmadi page e.g. Sarin, Ritu (22 August 2009). "For Kalmadi, F1 is Family 1st". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 26 April 2011. Retrieved 26 April 2011. are not working. And on the other hand no one is reviewing the edition done by maharashtramera instead you people are going on deleting the whole content. The facts should not be hidden if they are related to any person. I request you to have a discussion on this topic so that a proper justification should be done with this page Suresh Kalmadi.Maharashtramera (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I can't see much sign of you trying to discuss the matter. I can see you repeatedly adding promotional content, and when you realised that it wasn't going to stick, creating a new article on the subject to puss your point of view. I'm not going into the rights and wrongs of the content. I'm declining to unblock because I am not convinced that you understand the difference between Wikipedia and social media (with reference to your post at talk) and the reply there, and also because I feel that you will continue to push your views. Peridon (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2014 (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.