Xiantec

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
244		Internal conflict in Peru (talk)	Add sources
826		Paramahansa Yogananda (talk)	Add sources
9		Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas (talk)	Add sources
66		Minimax (TV channel) (talk)	Add sources
30		Wagon numbering system in India (talk)	Add sources
196		Nirmala Srivastava (talk)	Add sources
125		Satpal Maharaj (talk)	Cleanup
8		Kalyana Varadharaja Perumal Temple (Thiruvottiyur) (talk)	Cleanup
22		Hariharananda Giri (talk)	Cleanup
28		Nonsense (film) (talk)	Expand
160		Japa (talk)	Expand
16,629		2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (talk)	Expand
76		Surat Shabd Yoga (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
462		Baghdad Battery (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
15		Mudichur (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
66		Nawabshah (talk)	Merge
1,032		Samajwadi Party (talk)	Merge
666		DMZ (computing) (talk)	Merge
14		Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation (talk)	Wikify
65		State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (talk)	Wikify
118		2010 Pakistan floods (talk)	Wikify
4		Brahmrishi Bawra Shanti Vidya Peeth, Udhampur (talk)	Orphan
7		Castle Szidonia (Hotel) (talk)	Orphan
3		Victoria Coffey (talk)	Orphan
11		Thirumudivakkam (talk)	Stub
4		Vichoor (talk)	Stub
4		Karumbakkam (talk)	Stub
34		Bhonsala Military School (talk)	Stub
23		Advaitanand Ji (talk)	Stub
4		Kalpalayam (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ram Chandra (Babuji) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ram Chandra (Babuji). Thanks! Kaizenify (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ram Chandra (Babuji) has been accepted

Ram Chandra (Babuji), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Kaizenify (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jay Chaudhry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Bot :), corrected the mistake. Xiantec (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kanha Shanti Vanam, you may be blocked from editing. This article is, frankly, spam, and there is no informational content here that is not in the target article. Again, do not edit articles about SRCM directly. bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea, it appears funny to me, you made a [big change] in Kanha Shanti Vanam without any discussion, which [I reverted], requesting not to change without discussion and now you are saying I am making disruptive editing and I should discuss the matter on the talk page :). After my repeated requests [here], you are not answering where is the COI in my user page. Now if I don't know where the COI is, how do you expect me to learn and change anything? What's really a bad experience for me is that you are putting COI tag everywhere, making big changes without discussion, not giving straight answer why you think there is COI and now even threatening me to block. I am at loss here, is this how Wikipedia works? Is this how experienced users in Wikipedia treat new users? Maybe it was not such a good idea to keep making donations to Wikimedia organization all these years ... I am beginning to think. You might be really a busy user, so may not have time to reply, but thank you though for sharing some links for getting help from other experts, let me explore that. Xiantec (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologise if I gave the impression that your conflict of interest is due to the text you used to have on your user page. You have a conflict of interest because you are closely connected to the SRCM – surely that is not such an obscure rule. That means you have to stick to the policies for editing with a conflict of interest. As for donations, I think you will find that nobody cares one way or another – if you personally think it is a good cause to support, go for it, and if you don't, don't do it. --bonadea contributions talk 20:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea, please don't apologies, I was a bit frustrated failing to understand the COI cause hence vented out. I am learning by the way where my edits might have been problematic w.r.t NPOV and trying to correct them, but I would have appreciated if the pointing out of the problems would have been in a more civil manner as opposed to a direct blame and punitive action of COI tag and a threat to block. I am guessing that you being an expert user see many such users in this platform and perhaps deal with them on a daily basis and since I am very familiar with Media Wiki syntax as we have used it at work, my edits might be coming across to you as by an expert Wikipedia user, however when it comes to knowledge of Wikipedia policies I still have to learn a lot. Anyways, I will seek independent view on COI. Xiantec (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MER-C 11:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello Admins, my account has been blocked for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. I have following questions

1. Is it ok in Wikipedia to contribute to articles of one's interest or expertise, with the right intentions of following all guidelines or is it looked at as a COI? I have read the WP:COI and I understood that subject matter experts can edit articles on subjects of their expertise.
2. Which is more disruptive behaviour - an experienced user removing content, adding COI claim and COI tags on contributions of a inexperienced user simply on the basis of presumptions without giving proper reasons or discussing in talk page OR the inexperienced users reverting back those changes?
3. Is it ok for a novice user to ask and seek for specific clarifications on the violation of Wikipedia guidelines in a civil manner so he can learn from it?

While I agree and admit that some of my contributions might have had promotional language or tone, but that is unintentional and largely due of my inexperience and lack of good hold on Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps my expertise with wiki syntax could be misleading and causing others to think I am an expert user in Wikipedia, we who work in the IT use wiki for our work purposes so are very comfortable with it, but that does not make us equally good with Wikipedia's guidelines. What I do not understand and would like to know from admins is how / where I have caused violation of COI and notability guidelines? Below is the timeline and my plea, please review it and offer your opinion & advice, I will respectfully take it, if it comes from an independent admin.

1. In Sept 2018 Bonadea asked me if I was getting paid for making edits for Shri Ram Chandra Mission, to which I replied promptly that no I wasn't getting paid, nor do I hold any position. Being a new user and afraid of wrong doing I stopped edits for a couple of months and later resumed after Bonadea clarified after I asked repeatedly. Bonadea still made a claim of COI, referring to a statement in my user page. I believe that statement was saying that I practice Heartfulness meditation.
2. Meanwhile in 2019 and later I was intending to work on improving Sahaj Marg page, so initiated discussion in the Talk page for swapping it with HM page as the practice is popularly called as HM and most of the recent references are for HM. I added discussion in HM page also before making the change as I did not know about move request and WP:CUTANDPASTE. Bonadea did not take part in any of these discussions. My swap change was immediately reverted by the user Onel5969, who later guided me about making a move request
3. On that guidance I started the move request for Sahaj Marg page. Two users supported it, Bonadea opposed it, initially mainly on the ground that it is not notable. I gave 11 references, Bonadea gave counter opinion on some (many of which are questionable, please see yourself here). Then Bonadea switched the issue from notability to COI, citing a previous exchange we had in the past.
4. I questioned her claim of COI with purely an intention of learning where I have gone wrong and persisted with my questions, asking clearly if it's a COI for an expert to write on a topic of his expertise, I got no clear answer. See the exchange here and here
5. On 24 Oct 2020, after my persistent questions asking about COI, Bonadea changed the reason of COI from "you had declared in you user page" to "being closely connected with SRCM", not sure what that means.
6. Meanwhile Bonadea made big changes in articles I had added without any discussion and added COI tags purely on the basis of presumptions without giving proper explanation. When I reverted some of these changes, it was reverted back again and I was given a warning of doing disruptive editing with a threat of getting blocked. Admins, please take a look at this article and tell if it's a spam and not notable topic? If there is content which is promotional then I would expect a civil discussion in the talk page. Wiping out a painstakingly written article in one shot by adding redirection to a topic which has nothing mentioned about it, without any discussion, and giving a warning of block is not only disruption, but to me it's WikiBullying.
7. Now the user Bonadea is making changes like redireting The Heartfulness Way article to the author's page, citing the reason that it does not have independent notability. May I ask why this article does not redirect to Bill Clinton article? And there are so many such examples in Wikipedia. It appears to me that Bonadea has a negative bias against content related to Heartfulness or it's sister organization. Plus this user Bonadea has so many "implicit presumptions" of COI and content promotion that its not willing to consider that a user creating articles on related subjects could genuinely be not knowing what deserves to be an independent articles and what's not.

I believe Wikipedia encourages users to be Bold and Civil and I have always followed these guidelines to best of my knowledge, but I have not received similar behaviour in exchange from an experienced user like Bonadea, well Bold yes, but Civil No, I am sorry to say that. In fact I received a behaviour which appeared to me as filled with Bias, Harassment and Bullying. If such behaviour is fine in Wikipedia then perhaps it's not a right place for me. Either way, I would love to receive advice from the experts on this matter.

Xiantec (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't really seem to be asking to be unblocked; if you just want to ask questions in order to compose an unblock request, you may simply ask them.(perhaps tagging them with {{admin help}}) I will give you some free advice in that your request should only focus on your actions and not attack others; you are blocked for what you did, not for what others did to you. Please read the unblock appeals guide to learn how to craft an unblock request likely to be accepted. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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'll also simplify this for you in that, if you have a conflict of interest, you should start by explaining what it is, and how your future edits will be consistent with that policy. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello 331dot, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I went through the unblock appeals guide and after reflecting with a cooler mind on why I got blocked, I see following reasons which resulted in my block

1. Immediate reason seems to be my action of removing COI tags from a few articles. Since, most likely the COI tag was added because of my actions. Whether I agree or disagree with the COI, it was perhaps not right for me to remove them. I should have pursued some other means to seek clarification. I misinterpreted Be Bold guideline in this regards perhaps.
2. A deeper reason could be my account activity and inadequate knowledge of Wikipedia policies combined with my decent skills with wiki syntax which makes me look like an advanced wikipedia user. My contributions have been limited to a few topics only and though I have created several new pages following Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my knowledge, I think I am not clear on one particular aspect of Notability and that is - whether a related topic deserves a new article in the main space or a section in the parent article. I might have violated this particular policy. I would really appreciate proper guidance on this matter, rather than a straight forward accusation that I am doing promotion and I have a COI.
3. I took a stronger stance against this accusation and pursued the line of questioning as opposed to reflecting on my own action, this could be a reason for my block also and this is a lesson for me too.

All, I can say is, I will try to contribute to a more wider topics of interests in Wikipedia and particularly be careful about Notability guidelines. If I get a doubt whether a particular topic deserves an article in the main space or not, I will seek guidance and work with consensus.

With this assurance, I request the admins to unblock my account, so I may continue to contribute to Wikipedia in whatever limited capacity. I will most likely remain an infrequent editor like now. I am fairly confident that you will not find any disruptive edits from me. If you have any other advice for me, please feel free to give.

Hi @Onel5969: you had once advised me on an action which I had followed. I would appreciate if you could review this case and help me unblock and / or offer your guidance.

Xiantec (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

Comment to the reviewing administrator: Feel free to contact me if you have questions about the COI issues (which, I notice, have not really been addressed in the unblock request). --bonadea contributions talk 12:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea, I would appreciate if you would tell me also more about the COI issue. For several months you kept saying it's a COI because I had declared it in my user page, then recently you changed the reason to "you are closely connected to SRCM". For a long time I have been asking for clarification in simple terms, referring to relevant Wikipedia policies, so I can learn and adhere to those policies, but instead of giving a clear and straightforward answer, you got me blocked indefinitely with the help of admin. Yes I practice Heartfulness Meditation and I know about this organization quite well, does this fact qualifies for a COI? I thought this qualifies me to add real encyclopedic information on the topic as a subject matter expert. I have no intention to add any content for promotion purposes, if I added then it was unintentional and out of inexperience. For such content, by all means please remove it and you are welcome to chide me also, but I expected a civil discussion and guidance as opposed to accusations and indefinite block. Xiantec (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Email request

Hi Xiantec, you sent me an email requesting guidance on how to get unblocked. First, there's no reason to send an email, you could have simply pinged me here on your talk page with your request. Second, I can't really offer anything more that what NinjaRobotPirate offered in their response to your unblock request. When you have persistent issues with is deemed unconstructive, you must first understand how what you did was incorrect. It's fine to try and explain your actions, but the bottom line is you have to understand and admit you were wrong. I can't speak to the exact activity or activities which got you blocked, other than in a general sense. You appear to have a close connection with a company/organization. Therefore, you must stay away from editing those articles. Period. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't even make suggestions for edits on the talk pages of those articles. Just simply stay away from them. WP is not an advertising platform, and COI and UPE editors are of great concern to the project. But as I said, NinjaRobotPirate's suggestions are the best course of action you could take. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969:, thanks for replying. I did ping you actually, if you see the last line above my signature in my previous request to unblock. I am not sure if that's the correct way to ping or not. Since I didn't get your attention and the request got declined as a procedural decline due to inactivity for more than 2 weeks, I sent an email to you. Anyways, thanks for your guidance. Xiantec (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)