CMshah

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at NSEL case. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

NSEL case

I have been studying the page and the constant fluctuations have caught my attention. It presents significant information on the manner in which the financial markets function and there's endless debate and articles on various news platforms about the default. I have noticed that you and several others have repeatedly reverted changes. While you feel that you're right, the neutral POV appreciated by Wikipedia was reflected in the former content, according to me. Additionally, your edits lead to a substantial loss in citations, which I feel are instrumental in this particular case.

May I ask why you haven't replied or commented on the Talk page where ample debate has been sought? I would like to request you to join the debate on the Talk page and I intend to join in as well. Hoping that the page is structured to mirror the truth behind the varied opinions. Request you to consider the proposition. Thanks CartonMan (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello CMshah. I perceive that you had completely overhauled the content on the NSEL case page. My concern is that the narrative of the text has turned accusatory towards the concerned parties. Moreover, the information is identical to the content on the page which was subject to frequent edit wars. May I ask you to state eligible reasons as to why you’ve altered the content at such a substantial level without so much as a hint of rational debate on the talk page?

As far as the NSEL-FTIL merger section is concerned, you have made edits based on recent news which seems ironical in the sense that the rest of your edits are based on out-dated citations. It is simply indicative of an unknown agenda behind your rescripts on the page.

I have undone your changes and await your reply with justified cogitation. Thank you.CartonMan (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)