User talk:PMP1301

September 2021

Hello, I'm DEFCON5. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Prakash Mehra, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. defcon5 (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the term legendary is used in various articles in the books on Indian cinema to describe Mr Mehra, and he was definitely one of the Golden Directors of his time, kindly look up literature on him. You will find many references. Cheers.. PMP1301 (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I wrote to you yesterday. Kindly read the Times of India, in the references link. Even they address him as legendary. Please do not edit without research on a person for the sake of it. Thank you.

Also here is another link of the Economic times.

https://m.economictimes.com/industry/media/entertainment/producer-director-prakash-mehra-passes-away/articleshow/4542385.cms PMP1301 (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PMP1301: please familiarise yourself with MOS:PUFFERY and WP:CITE before making edits.defcon5 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DEFCON5, please read publicly available articles on him in any reputed publication. Times, Indian Express, Stardust magazine, etc etc. Information is per public record and clearly verifiable. You seem to have a personal agenda clearly, to have taken sudden interest in this page. PMP1301 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also see articles on other Producer Directors of the same era, eg Mr Yash Chopra, similar terms are used (rightly so), based again on publicly available information. Kindly attempt to explain and rectify all of em first with the same explanation. Thank you PMP1301 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If as you say similar terms are used in other articles then sooner or later they'll be removed, as they're contrary to WP policy. With regard to your example, Yash Chopra is not described as a "Golden Director" or as "legendary", and his films are not described as "blockbuster" or as "classics"; please read your sources before you cite them. "Legendary" properly describes a yeti, not a film director, The Economic Times' obituary notwithstanding.

Details about the man's children are irrelevant to the article. They are not themselves notable, and publishing their names and personal information without good reason is not only unkind it's contrary to WP policy. Read for example WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY.

While it's true that every statement in a WP article must be verifiable by means of reliable sources, it doesn't follow that every statement in a reliable source can or should be added to the article. His children's names are one example. The manner of his child's death, six years after his own, is another. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Yash Chopra is described as one of the"best" directors on his page. Which obviously you didn't seem to get. Secondly most of the pages I've seen have similar terminology used at various places, with references. A title given to a public figure by news publications upon his death, is definitely note worthy, and you seem to now want to make your own rules on this. Children's name was put in chronological order, just to emphasize, which son passed, date of passing was corrected. The information provided on the article was put there not by me but various other users, I've only maintained the relevant information. Do not attempt to bully after this pls by making up your own rules. When you state "While it's true that every statement in a WP article must be verifiable by means of reliable sources, it doesn't follow that every statement in a reliable source can or should be added to the article", this statement sounds not only absurd and contradictory but clearly shows your intention to bully, and makeup your own rules. Your own conversation is revealing your intentions. You also seem to provoke on personal fronts, this is clear from your other conversations with other users as well. You pick on new users, something like a cyber bully. I can have Administrators and other users check on you and all of your other edits, all day everyday too, if you wish to go down that road. Trump me with reasoning NOT bullying. And do not dictate terms. Follow rules as stated. PMP1301 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, "among the best" is a categorization. "Legendary" in this context is unverifiable hyperbole. An easy test: Relate three legends which prominently figure this film director.

Second, an obituary invariably represents a man as better than he was in life, nil nisi bonum, less noteworthy than other accolades because it's a pro forma social gesture.

Third, it's irrelevant how you order the children's names--their names and other personal information costs them their privacy without improving the article. "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." See WP:BLPNAME.

Fourth, "[w]hile information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article" is not "absurd and contradictory", it is WP policy (specifically, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion).

Fifth, what is absurd is that you insist on preserving puffery in the article contrary to WP policy because you found it in the article when you arrived.

Sixth, the complaints department is thataway. If you continue to abuse other editors I'll escort you there myself. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of being reported do you consider an abuse? Your reaction to this is clearly personal. Kindly do escort me to the complaints department, cause it does not matter who goes there, as long as your personal agenda along with DEFCON5 is exposed. There are lots of people such as yourselves, who decode rules per convenience to bully. That is my personal take on this, which I shall very well take up with the Admins. As far as abuse is concerned, passive aggressive bullying and insults are clearly seen in your communications with me and other people on your talk page too. So just the way you've voiced yourself and taken the action you deemed fit, so shall we. Now whether that is with the wiki admin or the interpol ;) , that call will be taken shortly. Till then have a great weekend. Regards PMP1301 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a conflict of interest

Hello, PMP1301. 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 or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} 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. Thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jezebel's Ponyo. Do accept my humble apologies, i am a new wiki user as you can clearly see. I do understand the COI guidelines and respect the same, kindly allow me to explain myself. There is an anti piracy crackdown, going on in India, that has been initiated by Mr Prakash Mehra's company on a massive scale. It is under the supervision of his son Puneet Prakash Mehra. This was initiated as a lot of Mr Mehra's exclusive copyright works were being illegally exploited on various websites across the internet and elsewhere. The crackdown involves multiple legal agencies, including the crime branch of the Mumbai police. Arrests have been made, websites shutdown and accounts have been blocked. Obviously the perpetrators are not too happy about the same. Many of them are technically savvy and we began to notice, that changes were being made to Mr Mehra's IMDB page, and other informative public pages. Accolades received were being deleted, along with the reference pages. In some cases slander and misinformation was being added. Therefore we actively began to keep watch on all platforms. We did the same for Wikipedia. And alas, the same pattern repeated on his page. His original Wikipedia page, was created by various users, we began to notice, his achievements along with titles given by the media and his peers, (with reference links ofcourse), got deleted from his page. We only made sure that the existing information and integrity was maintained. Now in the past 3 days, more arrests have been made, and suddenly DEFCON5 and Yappy2bhere, start making edits, and when relevant reference links are pointed out to back up the information, Yappy2bhere, presents this argument, I quote, "While it's true that every statement in a WP article must be verifiable by means of reliable sources, it doesn't follow that every statement in a reliable source can or should be added to the article". There seems to be an agenda here, I leave the ball in your court. Humble apologies again. We only keeping watch on already existing information, not attempting to make undue changes. Thank you for your time and hope for your understanding. Kind Regards, Team PMP PMP1301 (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Therefore we actively began to keep watch on all platforms." So you're paid by "Mr Prakash Mehra's company" to edit Wikipedia? Or are you a family member [1]? Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. Someone "paid" to edit Wikipedia would know how to do a much better job at editing and know a lot more. A family member would add and subtract lots more too. In the office, crew that operates the computer, eg accountant, assistant, etc, has been requested to randomly keep watch, every few days or weeks on his information on the net, that too only, after the piracy crackdown began, slander and misinformation was reported to have cropped up on his other pages, as authorities took action against the perpetrators. As requested, we only takedown slander and report, and make sure that information that has existed since prior, is not tampered with. In fact the proof of this is in the "films produced by" section of his wiki page, it consists of only 2 films, whilst reality is that he produced most of the movies directed by him, including all of the Amitabh Bachchan movies, and is the owner of the copyright of many films. We did not touch that part, as that is for the random users to check. I repeat, in view of the police crackdown, we only keeping watch randomly for slander and unnecessary deletion of verified information, we have neither added or subtracted any information that hadn't already existed on his page from prior to the crackdown. Hope this clears things up. Regards PMP1301 (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't, really. So, you work for the company but you're not paid to edit, have I got that right? Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will take you up with the admin now. Regards PMP1301 (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Don't forget to tip off Interpol. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol.. You definitely seem much more vested than me. You do realize that your own statements give your agenda away..Good luck.. PMP1301 (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said that [i]n the office, crew that operates the computer, eg accountant, assistant, etc, has been requested to randomly keep watch and that we only keeping watch randomly for slander and unnecessary deletion of verified information, which means that you're a member of the office crew. Is that correct?

You also said that [a]s requested, we only takedown slander and report, and make sure that information that has existed since prior, is not tampered with, which means that you're both monitoring changes to the article as a member of the office crew and editing WP in response to that monitoring. Is that also correct? Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. defcon5 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

331dot (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This block is also for edit warring. Please also read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]