Aarvig

Speedy deletion nomination of Relief India Trust

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Relief India Trust, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 182.64.147.90 (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Relief India Trust

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 Relief India Trust requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or an organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. 182.64.147.90 (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Relief India Trust

The article Relief India Trust has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Scam Trust, soliciting donations to a fake entity over phone. People see it has a wiki page and believe it is genuine. No physical existence at given address, except call center

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 182.64.147.90 (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Aarvig, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Raheja Developers, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

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! Bentogoa (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Raheja Developers

diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raheja_Developers&diff=650737574&oldid=650724414

Hi Aarvig, You have removed some sourced material without providing any explanation. Could you please help improve the article by doing so.

• The sourced material regarding serious Aam AadmiParty allegations has been removed, and replaced with an observation that this was just a political stunt.
• Also, you have added the line about it being a "political stunt." Could you support that assertion with a reliable source.
• And, you are continuously re-writing about the Slum Re-development project in present tense though it was awarded 5 years ago. No work has happened till date, and most recently the whole policy has been scrapped and, hence, the Raheja Kathputli Colony project is over. The source has been provided as today's Times of India article. Could you please explain why you keep removing this update?

Also @Sitush:Leoaugust (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Sitush, could you please help moderate, as you have made major edit to improve the page. Thanks, Leoaugust (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• • I can say only one thing to you for this. I know that this was an political stunt and that is why we can see about in news sites but here in wikipedia we should post the truth rather than facts published by the news sites. This was my opinion for this. Else you are welcome for further discussion here. Aarvig (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• • If it was just a stunt, work would have started. Not a brick has been laid in over 5 years at Kathputli Colony. This is not where you should put "truth" without credible sourcing, even if you think it is the "truth," because this is an encyclopedia not the Opinion Pages. Leoaugust (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Per "but here in wikipedia we should post the truth rather than facts published by the news sites" - that is not Wikipedia's policy. Wikipedia publishes verifiable material with a balanced point of view. Continually removing cited material based on your view of the "truth" is likely in conflict with Wikipedia's policy. I suggest you take a look at WP:TRUTH. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Raheja Developers. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm Bentogoa. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Raheja Developers  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Bentogoa (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I have explained. I am unable to find any related content on given reference link.Aarvig (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

AFD

Hi Aarvig, I removed your request for deletion[1] as you made no valid reason to delete (and plus you made the request on the AFD log which is incorrect anyway), Stating "I need strong reason to keep this article on wikipedia." will only see the article being Speedy Kept,
I would follow QuiteUnusual's advice and stop trying to get the article deleted otherwise you're gonna end up being blocked for disruptive editing,
Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm Sitush. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Raheja Developers because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia.

The article concerns the company, not unrelated news about a person who happens to be involved with it. Sitush (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

9 July 2015

Hello Thankyou for your message and giving me information. But please can you elaborate that how it is promotional. The reference is not a part of a company but about a person that tells users that he has been at a position which was given by Government. --Aarvig (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is about the company, not someone who is a director. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

27 August 2015 - edits to Relief India Trust page

Hello Aarvig. This regarding the Relief India Trust page. While reverting a comment on 26 August to an edit made by Bhargav46 (25 Aug), you mention that the references are not credible sources. May I point you to Verifiability - self published sources as sources on themselves. Such sources are permitted while an editor reviews a position expressed over several sources. I've rewritten Bhargav46's edit in a more neutral way, adding a section, and providing references. The article itself seems highly promotional. The criticism aids a certain amount of neutrality. It has also been alleged that the Wikipedia article is used by the organisation in its fraudulent activities. It is therefore best to keep the article neutral. Neogarfield (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

30 August

I suggest again that you read Verifiability - self published sources as sources on themselves. Blogs, social media etc are considered reliable sources for themselves. That is, one can make a claim on Wikipedia that a claim, x, is being made across i,j,k media. As long as the claim is not made in Wikipedia, but mentioned as being made across media.

I suggest that you yourself read the NPOV page before you undo edits. I suspect that you work for some agency which is paid to retain a certain positive image of possible damaging or fraudulent establishments, and I gather the same from your history, and your talk page. Advertising is not tolerated on wiki. Read What Wikipedia is not .

Considering that there is a substantial discussion regarding the organisation on social media, it ought to be included in the main page, lest the wiki page is used to lend credibility to fraudulent claims. I'm undoing your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neogarfield (talk • contribs) 07:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Neogarfield: Your interpretation of WP:SELFPUB is completely incorrect as it ignores "it does not involve claims about third parties". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hey, and thanks for the attention to the article and edit war in question. I'll write on your talk page, do check.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dr. J. S. Rajkumar (September 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Dr. J. S. Rajkumar may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Aarvig, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Onel5969 TT me 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Dr. J. S. Rajkumar

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:Dr. J. S. Rajkumar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://drjsrajkumarreviews.wordpress.com/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Aarvig/DRAFT has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Aarvig/DRAFT. Thanks! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

COI

Hello Aarvig. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. 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:Aarvig. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Aarvig|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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that 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 may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)