Rakrsu13

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Rakrsu13. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Metaphysics, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleting text

Deleting text from your own talk page is considered evidence that you have read and understood it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand my stand, appreciate if you start your understanding and stop being prejudiced.

Wikipedia isn't for self-promotion, as simply as that. We're not a PR venue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If you feel the addition is Promotion, I would say you are prejudice.

March 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Metaphysics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A discussion about your book is being held at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is prejudice and taking decisions without exercising common sense. Tgeorgescu haven't read the book, but he/she claims it's soapboxing or promotion or advertising. I request Tgeorgescu to be blocked, otherwise wikipedia shall only have Tgeorgescu opinions all over it.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is clear that you are here not to contribute to building the encyclopedia, but to use Wikipedia as a platform for publicising your work. You have repeatedly been informed of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on promotional editing, conflict of interest, and sources, but you have made it perfectly clear that you have no intention of accepting those policies and guidelines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at , but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Since posting the above notice I have discovered that you have been using this account to evade a block on another account. That is another reason to add to the reasons for this account being blocked. Also, please note that Wikipedia policy is that any editing by an editor ho is evading a block may be reverted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, You are another biased person who thinks what you think is right, it's because of people like you information in wikipedia is more prejudiced and lacks genuine information that isn't biased. JamesBWatson, Please don't make false claims.

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).

Rakrsu13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The whole book is centred at the "Being" and "Existence". What the author says in the book is exactly what is popularised as Metaphysics. The author in the book mentioned a technique called "witness", without this Metaphysics is just a dry theory without any kind of practical applicability and valid proof. Hence I added the book where it belongs in the wiki, Tgeorgescu and JamesBWatson are taking a decision in deleting my edits and blocking me out of their irrational behaviour and prejudices. How can you judge a book without having read?

Decline reason:

Pointing fingers at the admins who informed you repeatedly that your edits were advertising will not get you unblocked. Also, sockpuppetry will ensure that any unblock appeals will be denied. Due to your continued accusations of "prejudice" against multiple admins in your requests, I'm removing talk page access. You can request an appeal at WP:UTRS if you choose to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 6 March 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.