This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Moderators, Can you please point out the sections which seem advertorial or promotional to you so that I can convert them to a more neutral point of view. Thank You. Blessedhuman111 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Blessedhuman111: There aren't "Moderators" per se; every editor is a steward of content here. You are free to remove the issue template yourself if you feel article is not advertorial. The tagging editor provided no rationale in edit summary or Talk page. If there is disagreement on its removal (or inclusion), ideally, interested parties will come to this Talk page and explain their reasoning (WP:BRD). You are strongly encouraged to make any necessary improvements you see fit to the article. Be bold in your editing. So get in there and start editing! ;) Namaste. -- dsprc[talk]06:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please discuss policy-based arguments about the inclusion (or exclusion) of this controversial content here. The mention is sourced, is of encyclopedic interest, and doesn't go into any unnecessary detail. However, the sentence could use a bit more relevant context (or an update, if newer information from reliable sources becomes available). In short, the current version may need additional tweaking but should be included in some form. GermanJoe (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
