User talk:Kalpesh.popatYour submission at Articles for creation Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission 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.
The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
Dear Kalpesh.popat: Your article about Naturenomics would have been declined even if it didn't contain copyright material. It appeared to be promoting a series of books; promoting products is against Wikipedia policy. Before a new term can be in Wikipedia it must have been written about in a number of published sources that are not connected with its originators. A neutrally written article about the Foundation itself, or about the series of books directly if there are book reviews and independent news reports (not press releases) about them, may be appropriate. The articles will have to be written in your own words as a individual Wikipedia editor, and not as a representative of the Foundation. I hope this helpp. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Kalpesh.popat, you are invited to the Teahouse
Your submission at Articles for creation: Balipara Foundation (November 22) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Balipara Foundation
A tag has been placed on Draft:Balipara Foundation, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
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. Nathan2055talk - contribs 05:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Balipara Foundation (November 22) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 was:
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 when they have been resolved.
Editing with a conflict of interestHello, Kalpesh.popat. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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:
In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID). Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigationAn editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalpesh.popat, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Nathan2055talk - contribs 05:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Blocked for sockpuppetry
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).
Kalpesh.popat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I know this was a temporary block, however the accusation of sock puppetry is not correct and hence i want to appeal. This is generalisation based on location and naming convention. I do know Varsha and she has her own account and she works for Balipara Foundation. Even since my article was been denied by Wiki my account is constantly being scrutinised and i have a feeling the same strict scrutiny will happen in future also. I know you are trying to make Wiki the best place and this is just an effort to keep clean, however please exercise control and talk before coming to a conclusion. All they are trying to do is put an article in Wiki and we are not the first one to do so, i suggest the focus should be to help instead of keeping us busy defending our authenticity GABgab Decline reason: Procedural decline: you aren't blocked, so there is no appeal for us to consider. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2018 (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. |