User talk:Sitaray

Welcome!

Hello, Sitaray, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Sudip_patient.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sudip_patient.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the article alright now

Dr Sudip Bose has already been on Wikipedia for couple years. However a good amount of content was added to it. I have added more citations to the content, especially from reliable published sources and tried my best to make the article free of its Notability problem. Thanks Sitaray (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Avijit Lahiri's article

This article had the problem of being an orphan. So I have added many external links and also introduced links to this page from related articles, thanks. Sitaray (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Sudip bose.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sudip bose.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bose013.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bose013.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Quibik (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Avijit Lahiri for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avijit Lahiri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avijit Lahiri until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a new active COIN thread discussing your connection to Sudip Bose. Brianhe (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure of paid editing

Hello Sitaray. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Sudip Bose. 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.

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, and if it does not, 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, 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:Sitaray. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sitaray|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. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Brianhe (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sitaray, I am following up on Brianhe's inquiry here. Have you edited for pay in Wikipedia, or do you have any connection with Bose? Please answer. If you have it is no big deal, but you must disclose paid editing, and then there is some other stuff you need to do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I am a 'paid' editor by Sudip Bose. I was requested by Dr. Bose to create his article back in 2007. Let me know how can I get it back with a proper version. Sitaray (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Sudip Bose

Draft:Sudip Bose, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sudip Bose and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Sudip Bose during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry for this notice. Please disregard. MfD nomination was withdrawn due to speedy deletion below. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Sudip Bose

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.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Sudip Bose, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your employer

Please explain this edit]. You are required by paid editing policy to disclose both your employer, if you are not paid directly by the subject, and the firm's client. Please clarify. Are you paid by this Kolweb? If you are, I suggest that you revert this edit and provide further information to come into compliance with policy, as there are several "Kolwebs." Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Sitaray, the instructions are maybe a bit confusing. If you work for Kolweb and Kolweb is providing web design and marketing services to Sudip Bose (who of course would be paying Kolweb), then the employer field should be Kolweb, and the client field should be Sudip Bose. We get lots of freelancers doing paid editing, and in those cases the client = the employer and we ask only that the employer field be filled in, with the client's name. (I know, that is a little counter-intuitive) But in any case, that is why there is some ambiguity in the instructions. Please do let us know the reality. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jytdog: and @Coretheapple:, I am being paid by Bose directly. Although I worked with Kolweb before, who actually created his website and this article. Currently I am a freelancer. This is why first I added the disclosure as per the original state of the article. Then I realized that it may not be the case so I changed. Anyways, I have a question to both of you guys:

How come both of the articles below are not being questioned?

• Eric Thomas (motivational speaker)
• Jim Rohn

Sitaray (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you create the article, when you were at Kolweb, or did a colleague? I'll have a few more questions after that, and will respond to your bringing up those two articles, when we are done sorting this. My goal is to first get the past in order. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Would be great to hear from you on this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

distraction from the request for disclosure Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, the instructions are not confusing, they are simple, and there is no need to talk down to Sitaray and treat them like a child. This is a professional editor. If you look at their contributions, they started editing six years ago and periodically return for the purpose of servicing accounts. This editor admitted to starting the Bose article under a different account, so I am sure that he has more experience than you and I put together. If they want to respond, fine. If not, no problem, I am sure they are active under different accounts. This is not rocket science, bubby. Coretheapple (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC) This is not useful, Core. If you imagine yourself a newbie reading the instructions, they are confusing. I have tested them on several friends, asking each one to role play a different kind of paid editor. For play-freelancers, who have no employer, asking them to put the name of their client in the "employer" field is confusing and counter-intuitive. (imagine it). For people who play-work for a PR firm, who know the client is paying, seeing "paying for the contributions" in the definition of the employer field is confusing, since they know the client of the firm is ultimately paying for the contributions. They aren't written well for their intended audience which is newbie paid editors who actually want to comply with the disclosure obligation. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Oh please. This is not a newbie. This particular account has been around since 2009, and it has been socking up the wazoo, admitting to one other account on this article and clearly there are many others. I counted seven. This guy is a pro. Paid editing pros know how to read instructions and know our paid editing rules better than we do. If you truly think that this account is new, that it has been just knitting for the past few years of inactivity, i have a bridge to sell you Coretheapple (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Another editor just got an extended block for running around making strong claims of socking, when the SPI wasn't closed yet. You are going too far with that. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC) I defer to your superior knowledge of being blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Eric Thomas (motivational speaker) and Jim Rohn, please appreciate the fact that there are currently some 5.095 million articles on Wikipedia, and we can't deal with all of the problem ones at once! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and it is interesting that paid editors frequently point the finger like this. In any event I now realize that given that this is a sock, as was obvious when I asked this question, it was pointless to engage this account. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)