Shivarjun Das

February 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Indian Institute of Planning and Management, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Greyjoy ^talk 09:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Help talk:Cite errors, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. As it says at the top of that page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cite errors page." To find out how to add a ref to an article, read WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use edit summaries that are misleading, intentionally or not, as you did at Indian Institute of Planning and Management, you may be blocked from editing. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Mandatory paid editing disclosure

If you are being compensated in any way by IIPM, regardless of whether or not they are paying you to edit Wikipedia, you are considered a paid editor, and you made a legally-binding agreement when you created this account to disclose this fact, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. Boilerplate message below:

Hello Shivarjun Das. The nature of your edits 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:Shivarjun Das. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Shivarjun Das|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. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue with edits

Hi. I have made an.edit based on supreme court judgement. I am an independent news editor. What is the issue if I.post reality? Shivarjun Das (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that you have changed the meaning of sentences in the article, misprepresented cited sources, and you are adding material to the lead section of the article in violation of WP:LEAD without any corresponding material in the body. I suggest you propose your changes on the talk page. Your edits will continue to be reverted until you start explaining yourself. You give every appearance of being associated with IIPM. That is not a problem, but you need to be transparent about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Link for reality

This is the link and you can cross check with Supreme court judgement. Atleast the reality should be presented by Wikipedia or should be allowed. I am not a paid editor but just a reality provider. https://www.internationalnewsandviews.com/sc-upholds-iipms-right-to-impart-mba-education/ Shivarjun Das (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You may be interested in the concept of verifability, not truth; Wikipedia does not accept edits that the editor claims is the truth, without any sources to back it up. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history at Indian Institute of Planning and Management shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivarjun Das. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand the Wikipedia policies and contribute positively towards articles Shivarjun Das (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request does not address the sockpuppetry allegations on which the most recent (indefinite) block is based. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2023 (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.

Shivarjun Das (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a independent business owner and run an IT firm. I have no connection with IIPM and my work is to develop websites, mobile apps, CRM/ERP tools for customers. Wikipedia edit is my hobby and I come across various news and videos on which I carry research and add needed articles which are either judged by courts or on merit basisShivarjun Das (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

also I respect Wikipedia policies and commit to not bypass them. Kindly unblock meShivarjun Das (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)}} Shivarjun Das (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You have four open unblock requests, you only need one. (It looks like some of them you are placing in section headers, edits should only be placed in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header/edit summary window.) Please remove three of them and only keep the one you want reviewed. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am a independent business owner and run an IT firm. I have no connection with IIPM and my work is to develop websites, mobile apps, CRM/ERP tools for customers. Wikipedia edit is my hobby and I come across various news and videos on which I carry research and add needed articles which are either judged by courts or on merit basis Shivarjun Das (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You had five(!!!) open unblock requests, refused to address your sockpuppetry, and seem unable to follow simple directions. Yamla (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2023 (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.

I am a independent business owner and run an IT firm. I have no connection with IIPM and my work is to develop websites, mobile apps, CRM/ERP tools for customers. Wikipedia edit is my hobby and I come across various news and videos on which I carry research and add needed articles which are either judged by courts or on merit basis. Shivarjun Das (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I have determined that you do have a connection to IIPM. This should count against any future unblock request from you. --Yamla (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There is too much corroborating off-wiki evidence to be coincidental. Transparency is appreciated. Dishonestly and sockpupetry lead to being blocked.

If you want to be unblocked, your next unblock request should completely address the issues raised with honesty and transparency. Otherwise, your talk page is likely to be protected to prevent you from making further frivolous appeals. In the event you do this and your appeal is successful, you would not be able to edit the IIPM article or any topic with which you have a conflict of interest; you must propose your changes on article talk pages. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Commenting just to note that Ticket:2023030510002592 has relevant information about this user, should they request an unblock. —  Salvio ^giuliano 20:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)