User talk:Sharmavikas2k

March 2023

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Adobe Photoshop Elements, you may be blocked from editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by disruptive editing? I am trying to provide correct information to user so please stop reverting my changes.

Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop are two different products.

Photoshop is a professional-level application that is used by graphic designers, photographers, and other creative professionals. It offers a comprehensive set of tools and features for image editing, compositing, and digital painting, including advanced color correction, layer masking, and 3D modeling capabilities. Photoshop also supports a wide range of file formats, including RAW files from digital cameras.

On the other hand, Photoshop Elements is a simplified version of Photoshop that is designed for hobbyists and casual users. It offers many of the same basic tools as Photoshop, such as cropping, resizing, and color correction, but it lacks some of the more advanced features, such as layer masks and 3D modeling. However, Photoshop Elements does include some unique features that are not available in Photoshop, such as guided edits, which provide step-by-step instructions for achieving specific effects.

In terms of price, Photoshop is a more expensive application, and it requires a subscription to Adobe Creative Cloud. Photoshop Elements, on the other hand, is a one-time purchase, and it is generally less expensive than Photoshop.

In summary, Photoshop is a powerful and complex tool that is best suited for professional designers and photographers, while Photoshop Elements is a more accessible and affordable option for casual users who want to edit and enhance their photos.

Photoshop Official page- https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.html

Photoshop Elements Official Page -https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html Sharmavikas2k (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will need to engage in discussion—probably at Adobe Photoshop, at this point—that enough can be written about Elements that it needs (re-) split into a separate article. Only if there is consensus for the split will it happen. —C.Fred (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sharmavikas2k. The nature of your edits 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 very 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 extremely 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:Sharmavikas2k. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sharmavikas2k|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. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More about Adobe Photoshop Elements and significant coverage

I'm bringing this here to keep from flooding Liz's talk page, and so that it's here for your reference in case she archives the thread.

Looking at the links you provided to the major secondary sources, what I found were reviews, essentially all of which either referred to Elements as the Photoshop version for amateurs or otherwise compared or related it to Photoshop. This is precisely the concern raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adobe Photoshop Elements when the nominator said Sources appear to be WP:ROUTINE coverage and offer no evidence that this is notable independently of Adobe Photoshop. That is why the content—or what was salvageable of it—was merged to the Adobe Photoshop article: Elements does not have notability in and of itself, but it is worth mentioning as a variant or related program to Photoshop.

User reviews do nothing to establish notability. At their most benign, the users are not reliable in their field (or there is no way to credential them as such). In the worst case—and this has happened with other products—the reviews have been astroturfed to create an apparent grassroots support that isn't really there. That's why the general notability guidelines talk about significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (For the independence reason, any publication by Adobe—whether it be their website or a press release—is not acceptable.)

One last thing. This situation is a prime example of why our conflict of interest guidelines exist. It is very clear that you have an agenda: you are seeking to get a standalone article for what you view as a separate product. In the eyes of the encyclopedia, however, it does not clear our guidelines for notability and may not have its own article, although it is significant enough to mention in the Photoshop article. For any changes to be made, they must align with what is best for the Wikipedia project and its goals, not for the Elements marketing team and its goals. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]