User talk:Tezaswiniisrani

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Welspun Group, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! DanCherek (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Tezaswiniisrani. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Welspun Group, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Edwardx (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still editing

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:Tezaswiniisrani. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tezaswiniisrani|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
There shouldn't be any URL links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tezaswiniisrani. Could you please respond to the above requests from myself and DanCherek? Also, in this edit summary, who is "we"? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Welspun One

Hello, Tezaswiniisrani, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Welspun One, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welspun One.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Meatsgains^(talk) 16:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meatsgains, Thank you for your reply.

I would appreciate your advice on improving my article on Welspun One so that it won't get into deletion again.

Thank you. Tezaswiniisrani (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Welspun One for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Welspun One, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welspun One until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2022 (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. Thank you. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

Star Mississippi 13:17, 16 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that i have made a mistake in adding promotional links in my article. I have read the guidlines and there will be no same errors from my side. I would request you kindly unblock my account. Tezaswiniisrani (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for promotional editing(though you were); you are blocked for violating the Terms of Use by failing to disclose paid editing. Any paid relationship, including employment, must be disclosed. It also appears that multiple people have access to your account, which is not permitted. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

The page is handled by one person who is employed in the Welspun Group. The article is not done under any paid activity. The account has been loged-in at office,home via wifi or Mobile cellular Data. We have been trying to reach and tryed to have a word still no one responded us to guide. Even after continuous follow-up the page deleted and ID got blocked. We request you to please unblock the ID so I can maitain my writer identity on Wikipedia. Tezaswiniisrani (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you are describing counts as paid editing. See WP:PAID. Yamla (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (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.

Likely Sock of Meat

Based on my comment on Draft:Balkrishan Gopiram Goenka, it appears there is a likely sock or meatpuppet attempting to submit the same content as this now blocked user. Just FYI for anyone who may review any additional requests for unblock by this user. CNMall41 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's another "friend" at my Talk. @Yamla in your opinion is it worth filing an SPI or this is all meatpuppetry? Star Mississippi 13:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They've admitted to meatpuppetry, I believe. That's enough for a block. Still, I wonder if an SPI might be worthwhile. It at least would get them closer to a WP:3X community ban, if we are indeed dealing with direct sockpuppets. Thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paperwork done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tezaswiniisrani. Thanks for the insight @Yamla and the phrasing. Star Mississippi 15:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation complete, socks tagged and blocked. --Yamla (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: & @Star Mississippi:, I figured it would be a clear WP:DUCK block so thank you for taking it a step farther and getting this to SPI. It was late and I didn't have the energy so you two did a great job stepping up. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]