Jump to content

User talk:Shivam750

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Annh07 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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.
Annh07 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Shivam750! 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! Annh07 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 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:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello friend, @WikiDan61
I have re checked the draft's summary and I believe that the attached multiple sources meet the criteria for in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent references. However, if there are any specific problem or if further improvements are needed in draft, i would appreciate your help. Your knowledge would be very helpful for my firsts draft on wikipedia. Shivam750 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. Let's take a look at your sources:
  1. Traxcn.com: indiscriminate database of organizations that just lists the website's personnel.
  2. IndiaInfo.net: another indiscriminate database of India-related info, again just listing details about the organization's personnel and address
  3. Google: just a page listing Google search results for the organization's website
  4. Bloomberg: Dead link
  5. Give.do: a crowd-funding site
  6. TheOrg.com: a site where anyone can upload their work details to generate an online org chart. Nothing in depth here (at least nothing independent and in-depth)
  7. TheTrendingPeople.com: The organization's own website
  8. "Can the digital revolution save Indian journalism?": an article that does not once mention TheTrendingPeople
So, I'm failing to see where the multiple sources meet the criteria for in-depth, reliable, secondary independent references. Perhaps you can correct me. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDan61, that CJR article doesn't even mention it? What a shame--I was just about to read it. I did notice that--wasn't the article from 2016? Yes it was. Shivam, can you explain why you used that article and what it was supposed to verify? Or was this just handed to you? Drmies (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hare Krishna friend @WikiDan61 Shivam750 (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Traxcn: This source was added because Traxcn.com is an established research company that gives a lot of information, especially about the startup environment. Business investors and business development teams use it a lot to get ideas and do research.
IndiaInfo.net: I understand your concern. IndianInfo.net is an independent and reliable platform that offers a wide range of information about various entities in India, including temples, schools, stores, corporate offices, and organizations. However, if you find it unsuitable or unreliable, I'm open to removing it from the draft.
Google: Agreed, this is merely a listing of Google search results for the organization's website and may not provide substantial information.
Bloomberg: The link that was given seems to be broken, though. I'll look for another source or, if necessary, take it out of the draft.
Give.do: I included Give.do because it's a well-known and trusted site in India that helps individuals and organizations raise funds. It tells you what these groups are doing and what information you can trust.
TheOrg: I acknowledge your point. While TheOrg.com allows users to generate online organizational charts, it may not offer in-depth or independent information.
TheTrendingPeople: As the organization's own website, TheTrendingPeople.com is a trusted source of information. It's worth noting that even platforms like Wikipedia use it as a citation source, indicating its reliability.
"Can the digital revolution save Indian journalism?": This article references The Wire, which has evolved into TheTrendingPeople. I'll explore additional, more in-depth and reliable sources to strengthen this aspect of the draft please help me and correct me regarding this Shivam750 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I did a WP:BEFORE search and found that The Trending People website is not notable. You may want to consider redirecting your time and contributions to other areas of Wikipedia. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hare Krishna Friend @WikiDan61 Shivam750 (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Shivam750/sandbox

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Shivam750/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages 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 deleted 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. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

[edit]
Information icon

Hello Shivam750. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:The Trending People, 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:Shivam750. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Shivam750|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. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jeraxmoira I want to clarify that I am not receiving any compensation for my edits. I apologize for any confusion my contributions may have caused. However,
I am ready to follow Wikipedia's rules and would welcome any help or instruction you can offer going ahead. Shivam750 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think User:Jeraxmoira was in any way confused, and neither am I. If you want to follow the rules, disclose your COI. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I'm tla 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:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Sourcing is WP:PRIMARY. Article from Borok Times is dubiously WP:RELIABLE.
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.
TLAtlak 21:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bhoomiheen Camp (March 20)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chaotic Enby was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
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.
Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SEO sourcing

[edit]

Stop icon You have used sources that are either clearly noted as paid placement, unmarked press releases or marketing content, or blatant fake content farms which house unmarked SEO placement. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. These sources step far beyond those policies. Please carefully evaluate your references in the future, and ensure that you are in compliance with our mandatory paid editing disclosures. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

[edit]
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).

Shivam750 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My account got blocked, but I promise I'm not using multiple accounts. Can you please unblock me? I just want to contribute to Wikipedia and follow the rules. :Thanks for your help. Shivam750 (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sockpuppetry to globally locked user, सीमा कश्यप. Yamla (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2024 (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.

Unblock Request: Sheru Photography Drafting Permission

[edit]
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).

Shivam750 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully request the unblocking of my Wikipedia account, @Shivam750, as I believe it was blocked mistakenly. I sought permission from @Bbb23 to create a draft article about Sheru Photography due to a personal connection through Facebook. Regrettably, my request led to the block. I assure you of my commitment to Wikipedia's guidelines and seek your understanding in this matter. Even my draft work The Trending People also deleted. I think this is Wikipedia administration dictatorship if I'm not wrong. Shivam750 (talk) 11:14 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2024 (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.

I've revoked TPA. You'll have to request an unblock from your original account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shivam750&oldid=1217076487"