Hillary1900

Hillary1900, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Hillary1900! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, right: MrOllie can accuse me of receiving payment, but I don't have the right to respond to his absurd and false allegations? He's going to HAVE to prove his allegations. An accusation of benefits, in and of itself, such as the one advanced by Ollie, is in outrageous.

And, yes, a violation.

So, MrOllie, the burden of proof is on you. You started all this up.

MrOllie is the prime mover here, make no mistake. Hillary1900 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Please edit the correct section of this page, at the bottom, so posts are properly organized. You are blowing things way out of proportion here.331dot (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aditi Rao Hydari, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diff: [1] Your change conflicts with this reference, which spells Hydari's father's name Ehsaan. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.lawyerservice.in/Ahsan-Hydari-Versus-Vidya-Hydari-1989-03-01

Here's the reference. Hillary1900 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo. Sorry. Here's that link:

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Ahsan-Hydari-Versus-Vidya-Hydari-1989-03-01.

Unless it's a different Ahsan Hydari and Vidya Hydari. Hillary1900 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Hillary1900 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is another link:

https://www.geni.com/people/Ahsan-Hydari/6000000007722997737 Hillary1900 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsuitable per WP:RSP, as it is a user-generated site. Mainstream secondary sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, like major newspapers, are what we should be aiming for, not random websites, content scrapers, legal documents, etc. Please see our reliable sourcing guidelines. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! Hillary1900 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources on CMU President Cyert

Hello, Hillary1900, I see that you were already briefed about Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines in January. Regarding your suggestion at Talk:Oopali Operajita of getting connected to Carnegie Mellon's Vice President, they will be at most a primary source. If however, you are able to get to a reliable secondary source, then that is what will help in the Oopali Operajita page. Jay ^(Talk) 23:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing notice

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oopali Operajita. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jay ^(Talk) 10:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The above is a templated message. The edits referred to would be all edits from August 2 that do not have an explanation, and no engagement on the article's talk page's different sections related to the content you have added, deleted or modified. For some examples of disruptive editing, see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing. The Dispute resolution page would be a good reference on how to collaboratively build articles. Jay ^(Talk) 10:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You have yet again removed valid content without explanation despite being referred multiple times to the relevant section at the talk page, and inserted unverified content. I see that another admin Cyphoidbomb had pointed out about reliable sourcing of content in January. You may reach out if you need more help with the guidelines. Jay ^(Talk) 06:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

unsourced awards additions

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Oopali Operajita, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. This is the second time you are adding awards and achievements to the article without providing a source or an edit summary. You may discuss at Talk:Oopali Operajita#Awards lacking sources if you feel your edits are justified. Note that I had removed the entries after finding no sources. Jay ^(Talk) 07:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello Hillary1900. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Oopali Operajita, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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, broadly construed, 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:Hillary1900. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Hillary1900|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. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone says you are a paid editor, and you are not, you need only say that you are not a paid editor. You don't need to make legal threats. We cannot stop you from pursuing legal action, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia, nor can you edit if you have a legal action underway. You may pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both. To be unblocked, you will need to unequivocally withdraw any and all legal threats and/or indicate any legal action is concluded. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A certain MrOllie makes illegal and false charges about "someone", namely myself, being paid to promote a page. When such charges are made, they #have# to be backed up with hard financial evidence. Should he not be able to back up his false allegations, then his whimsical charges amount to very serious and provocative Defamation. Accusing someone of being paid without having a shred of evidence to prove it is an extremely serious LEGAL matter.

Whilst Wikipedia is used by scientists and other professionals such as myself, arbitrary edits and slapping of unfounded charges considerably diminish its credibility.

You often have single editors getting on a case (this happens often in some countries more than others), and get manic about ruining a page.

Now, social media is not above the law. No media is. If MrOllie is slapping an unfounded and serious charge of my being paid to promote a page, he has got to PROVE it. I absolutely demand that of him, and now. The burden of proof rests with the person making an allegation. It isn't difficult at all to find out who Ollie is.

Wikipedia: you need to control loose canons, who are out to graze, because they ruin an otherwise fine project. Hillary1900 (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If you continue to double down on the legal threats, you will lose access to this page. You are blowing things out of proportion here. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also be aware of WP:OUTING. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, you are extremely loose with your words, Hillary1900. MrOllie didn't say you are a paid editor, he said (using one of our carefully worded templates that are used by our "loose cannons" all over the site) that your contributions give the impression that you are. He's right. Bishonen | tålk 13:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

Allegations of receiving payments are false and misplaced

Thank you for your civility. But it's rather over the top for an experienced attorney to be accused of receiving payments for a lone wikipedia article.

Wikipedia provides valuable research material to us - and even to my friends and colleagues who are physicians - hence this arbitrary besmirching rankles, and is wholly unwarranted. Please remove that allegation.

I did provide a reference - a recent book - which lists ALL of Professor Operajita's awards. That reference was deleted (please check out the history of edits). As a matter of fact, there are about 11 more major awards she has received, listed in the book, but not on her wikipedia page.

Thank you once again for reaching out. Hillary1900 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You may make an unblock request, per the instructions in the block notice. Again, if you are not a paid editor, you need only say "I am not a paid editor". You will need to unequivocally withdraw any and all legal threats and/or indicate any legal actions underway are concluded, as part of being unblocked. If you are unwilling to do that, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Could the Oopali Operajita wikipedia page please be deleted? I have heard, indirectly, that that is what Professor Operajita wants. She has rarely visited her wikipedia page, but with the rampant desecration and fiddling that is taking place on her page now, it will soon be left with nothing or a plethora of inaccuracies. It was brought to her notice this morning, by an owner of Wikipedia, apparently, and she's clearly not pleased.

The last straw is someone recently editing it and stating that she was invited to choreograph the Rashtrapati Bhavan concert for President Obama by the ??? That's a non sequitur, and makes no sense.

She knows one of Wikipedia's founders very well and will make this request to him, citing her reasons.

You asked for a citation for her awards which had been provided to Jay a few days ago. ALL of her awards are listed in this book, published in 2018.

So please delete this page before it is further mauled, and before further inaccuracies creep into it.

When we edit, we edit with humility, because there are a gazillion facts about India that we don't know. For example: the Indian Council of Cultural Relations, which is the equivalent of the National Endowment of the Arts, USA, lists Professor Operajita in its Outstanding Category of Artists. That is the rarest and highest honour for a classical artist, but that gets deleted by MrOllie. So do a whole bunch of others. Professor Operajita's websites are used selectively by editors.

Her performance at the Rangos Ballroom in 1996, was listed by Jane Vranish of The Pittsburgh Post Gazette as one of the Top Ten Dance Performances in the USA, and not in the Rangos Ballroom, as listed. Being declared one of the Top Ten performances in the Rangos Ballroom is not something one would prefer to. Ditto with being an A grade artist of National Television, of India's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Professor Operajita is still a Distinguished Fellow at Carnegie Mellon, and that is cited by The Economic Times, The New Indian Express, The Indian Express and DailyO of The India Today group (all very recent citations). Each of these newspapers has a circulation of between 1 - 3 million, and, cumulatively, together with online subscriptions, they are, likely, read by about 15 million people. Her website has not been updated, but www.oopalioperajita.com is updated.

So, yes, please delete this page before it is mutilated beyond recognition.

Again: I take serious exception to the defamatory charge levelled at me by MrOllie. Anyone who knows an American attorney's work space, would be cognizant of the fact that we do rather well with our law practice, and edits for Wikipedia are not likely to make a difference to our earnings! That's a ludicrous - and, yet, palpably false and wicked - charge.

Thank you. Hillary1900 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

What is hosted by "Indian's" president? Your most recent editor says Professor Operajita's Rashtrapati Bhavan concery was hosted by Indian's (sic) President?

All the citations from websites such as the NYPL which were valid are now being called into question by your latest editor. This, to my mind, is analogous to vandalism.

There's no category called Indian dancer. It's "Classical Indian Dancer." Indian very often connotes American Indian. But Professor Operajita's full time occupation is as an academic and an Adviser, Public Policy, Communication and International Relations per recent Op-ed pieces in major Indian dailies (the most recent being The New Indian Express of 1 October, 2021).

2. When you categorize Professor Operajita as an "Indian dancer" what do you allude to? The style? Her nationality?

We need to know. Hillary1900 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not something one would refer to, not prefer to. Spellchecker intervenes in its own manner.

Off to Court now. Hillary1900 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You really need to learn how to post at the bottom. Since you have doubled down on legal threats, and continue to misuse this page, I am removing access. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 331dot (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)