User talk:Tejpal007

Hi Tejpal, I have been submitting certain changes in Mutual Funds page with new and authentic information but you have reverted the change citing it as spam even though the information is correct and adds value to the page. Could you tell me what exactly I am doing wrong here?

Hello, you can add reliable sources for citing. You were constantly adding investing.net.in which is a completely new website and it also shows your conflict of Interest (COI) with the company. If you are paid for your editings directly or indirectly, you can disclose it 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:Psg0905, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Psg0905|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Tejpal007 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will post it on my user page, but genuinely believe it must be the information that should be verified rather than the source, even biggest news houses post un researched numbers. More focus on correct information should be the ideal way forward. Yes, I haven't edited anything since that day, wanted to confirm the issue with you since it makes no sense to keep doing this forever.

It is not paid, it is a blog I am creating after lot of research which you can check by going through the articles, I am sure you will understand why I am so sure while adding it as source of information. No ads are being displayed over there, not looking for money. Just good info around the topic that are being covered there.

June 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:37, 27 June 2019 (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).

Tejpal007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Yunshui, I don't know why my Wikipedia account got blocked from editing. I have contributed to Wikipedia to stop possible vandalism. My all edits were to stop vandalism from Wikipedia, nothing abusive or spamming activity. Can you please look again into the matter? Tejpal007 (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is literally explained immediately above your unblock request. Please read it. Yamla (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2019 (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.

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).

Tejpal007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello dear, But I haven't did anything that flag my account as spammy, you can also check my all the previous edits. I am just stopping the possible vandalism on Wikipedia and I don't think it count in spamming. Kindly, re-review and let me know exactly where is the problem that lead me an account block.

Decline reason:

Firstly, this is clearly spamming, but that's not what you're blocked for. Secondly, another account you're associated with is Robertnicky, who also was spamming. Yunshui's comment in the block log, "part of UPE ring", seems correct. Huon (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2019 (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.

You aren't blocked for spamming, you are blocked for Sock puppetry. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! But I haven't seen any investigation or any other notification regarding the Sock puppetry, direct without any notification. Can you please clear you're talking about which accounts that you think made me sock puppet? Thanks!

I can clearly align to this but the secondary account Robertnicky you are talking about not belong to me. Sorry, but maybe misunderstanding from your side. Thanks!