User talk:Nikhil1115

This is Nikhil1115's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zeus (company) (May 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Company may well be notable but there are way too many links to company sites. Forcus on what independant 3rd parties say about the company. If the company is WP:LISTED as the term "public" suggests this gets much easier to accept. Please clearify ownership/public status

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zeus (company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Zeus (company), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikhil1115! Having an article 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! Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Zeus (company) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Zeus (company). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zeus (company) (June 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

In addition to a promotional tone in the second half of the article, a large amount of the language simply doesn't make sense.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zeus (company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Zeus (company), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Zeus (company) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Zeus (company). Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for undeclared paid editing in violation of the Terms of Use.

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 ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the evidence is private or might run afoul of WP:OUTING if published here. In case this block is contested without an admission of undeclared paid editing, I'll gladly supply the relevant evidence privately to any interested admin via email. I wouldn't have blocked the account if there hadn't been misleading and flat-out false statements in the IRC help channel which indicate that this is not an accidental omission but a deliberate attempt to mislead, combined with promotional editing here on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2018 (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).

Nikhil1115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Huon, I advised on the Live Chat page that this edition is/was never the part of my job. I want to contribute as I do on Quora too. They ever never blocked me there. It is not the solution to bock someone right away without knowing any facts. You have no clue what I do and why I wanted to come on Wikipedia. Also, to prevent someone from editing is an easy solution on Wikipedia by experience editors like you, without knowing the fact that some people don't work to get paid for specific things they do on the internet. I was never told by anyone in the company to write a Wikipedia page. You claimed to visit my Linkedin Page and the job descriptions you see -- it never uttered anything about 'Wikipedia'. There is utterly analytically- and strategically-assigned jobs that I do for the company. If this were the part of my work -- I would have entrusted this job to do my juniors in the organisation. There could have been nothing better than this company to write because I wanted to leverage the knowledge about this company to build my portfolio. If you think -- its misleading, I apologise for it, but at the end -- Id still put forth this statement 'this is not a paid job'. I may come here with another name and make a profile and do the things, and I am not witless who would deliberately make me susceptible to be blocked when I know I have a rich LinkedIn profile. It does all depend on you now -- cause the lack of rights and you being given administrative rights, I can only humbly ask you unblock me. I can delete this article and can write on something I know.

Decline reason:

The conversation below convinces me that there is no benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking this account. The conflict of interest is evident, even if you aren't getting paid specifically to edit this article; the attempts at obfuscation are clear; there is an obvious lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia's policies and an equally obvious unwillingness to try and understand or abide by them. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:20, 3 September 2018 (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.

I find that pretty much incomprehensible, sorry. Can you please make a clear statement on whether you have or have not ever edited Wikipedia for pay, as part of your job, or in any other situation described at WP:PAID? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have NEVER edited Wikipedia for PAY! Wikipedia is a good platform to start building some writing skills. I have been writing on a lot of topics and those are updated on my LinkedIn profile and I write on Quora. I certainly don't write to get PAID on LinkedIn and Quora. This is my first ever article that I wanted to create, prior to this - I had no experience in writing to Wikipedia. I don't know -- how Huon contemplated this as "Spam". It's derogatory -- when it's not a spam. Thanks.

And, this is not certainly a part of job. I may have a designation called Digital Strategist -- but, Wikipedia is not a platform to blow the promotional trumpet. In my knowledge, Wikipedia is all about information; encyclopedia. If I had to spam -- I would have tested it using a spammy email address and wouldn't have used my personal email address. I would again request you -- this is not a PAID work. In lieu of this, if you still feel that NOTHING can prove this as unpaid work -- then please let me know, and I'd stop requesting you and wasting your time. Many Thanks.

I was only asking! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Zebedee, this company doesn't even know that I am working on a Wikipedia page. The only thing is I have an access to companies assets or their FB page and I -- with the consent of the company -- used the media and uploaded on Wiki (which most of thr editors deleted because it was coming from Facebook.) Which to me is utterly a legit action! I would have uploaded my own media -- which I would, if unblocked. Companies are generally looking for Sales and Wikipedia cannot provide the customers. Google provides more ways for promotions, though, and so customers. Wikipedia article -- I wouldn't reckon -- can help them much getting sales done. Anyway, I am really sorry if my tone was a bit strident. Thanks again for your help and asking the essential questions! :)

Since you gave your designation as "Digital Strategist", one of the top 11 positions at Zeus Packaging that get mentioned on their website, I'm sure you can explain how it isn't misleading to summarize your association with the company as "my friend works there". I'll also point reviewing admins to the signature at the OTRS ticket for one of your image uploads. How can "this company doesn't even know that I am working on a Wikipedia page" and "I -- with the consent of the company -- used the media and uploaded on Wiki" both be true? And which company, exactly, gave their consent for the use of an image whose metadata says it's copyrighted by Daniel Graves Photography with usage terms given as "free use with press release - overwise please contact"? And you're saying it's "utterly a legit action" to you to claim images as "own work" that are not your own work? Huon (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the draft is quite spammy and, in combination with an undeclared conflict of interest, justifies a "spam-only account" block even if this really were not paid editing. Huon (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed data passed to me (which cannot be openly shared here due to outing policy), suggests that we are not seeing full disclosure on the part of the user. I support denial of unblock request.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zeus (company) (November 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Frayae was:

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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The company is infact a private ltd and not listed, or public, or publically tradable.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zeus (company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Zeus (company), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]