User talk:Serious Modi

April 2024

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Majra did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, from now onwards, whenever I make any edit, I will definitely write edit summary.Serious Modi (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serious Modi. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Shruti Reddy, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:Serious Modi. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Serious Modi|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that this is a paid article. I will keep this in mind from now on. By the way, how did you find out that this article is paid???. Serious Modi (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Serious Modi, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Serious Modi|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Meenakshi Pancharatnam (April 9)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Meenakshi Pancharatnam and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Serious Modi! Having an article draft 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! Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sumitra Kumar Paul (Baban) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Sumitra Kumar Paul (Baban). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pappu Can't Dance move

Please do not move this article from Draft Space. I explained to the article's creator on their talk page the problems with this article [1] and I denoted the issues on the article talk page [2]. Also, please do not remove clean up templates from the article without first fixing the issues. For your benefit, I will explain once again, the problems with this article:

This article appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Most all of the sources cover the related movie from which the song is derived, not the song itself, which is the subject of the article. There is only meagre coverage of the song in a couple of sources. Even the accolades section is about the movie and not this particular song. It is a well made article but it uses WP:REFBOMB as sourcing in an attempt to pass muster in the main space. I tagged it for not citing sources that reflect significant coverage.

And I did leave a message on the author's talk about these issues. I have now moved it to draft because this needs independent sourcing the shows significant coverage of this topic. And remove most all of the sources pertaining to the movie, such as movie reviews. Maybe leave only one or two references about the movie as needed. Also, more than passing mention about this song is needed.

And I notice there is a concern that you might be a paid editor. Did you move this article into the regular Wikipedia main space for compensation? If you are being paid, then you need to disclose that. And if you are a paid editor, you should no longer edit this article directly. Please see the above note---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and sorry for the move Serious Modi (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New user

I notice that this is a new account, having only been established about nine days ago, on April 6, 2024. You have demonstrated editing skills that only an experienced Wikipedia editor has. Do you have another account that you normally edit from? Or did you previously have another account that is no longer active? Disclosing this information would be helpful. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samdish Bhatia moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Samdish Bhatia. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Serious Modi (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Draft:Shruti Reddy. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Saishna96 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saishna96. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]