Vidyutblogger

Vidyutblogger, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Vidyutblogger! 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 Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Vidyutblogger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I've somewhat belatedly put a standard welcome set of words used to help become you seem to have a declared conflict of interest with an article. As a rough rule guide it is best not to edit and article with which you have a conflict of interest. Correcting a minor spelling mistake is ok (e.g msitake->mistake) but much more can become problematic. If you do wish an edit on such an article see See WP:REQUESTEDIT and Template:Edit request for a method of getting it done. Expect the request editor to reject anything that is not WP:RS or has any chance of being promotional. I would also suggest creating User:Vidyutblogger and adding

{{UserboxCOI|Vidyut Kale}}

This is all possibly a little late but still probably worth doing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I apologize for the comment I left on your talk page. I didn't realize I was logged out till after I posted it and it got posted by IP. Since then, reading discussions between two other editors led me to discover that the account that was my sock was "Sparebug". I recalled feeling surprised that their comment was similar to something I had discussed in person with someone (which I also later commented on the thread) and asked her if she had done the edit and she said she had. It was ill advised and I had explicitly asked her to not get involved when I realized that she seemed to want to act. It wasn't me, but it was what I had said. So I did have a sock. My apologies.

For what it is worth, I think I should stay away from Wikipedia altogether.

Vidyutblogger (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:TonyBallioni. See also User talk:Djm-leighpark#Supreme Leader (permalink) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vidyutblogger. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why Djm-leighpark is being asked about my edit on the page for Supreme Leader. What is wrong with it? It has nothing to do with my page or any conflict here. Modi was called Supreme Leader on camera by party spokesperson - and he has often been referred to as Supreme Leader. I realized Wikipedia actually had a page for Supreme Leader, and it did not list his name. I had provided references. So where was the problem? Vidyutblogger (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'd suggest carrying on that conversation on by talk page rather than here if necessary. I'll get some spiritual advice before continuing there so if will be between 2 and 24 before I can respond. Both Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington can probably help a little with what is acceptable content and what isn't. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has questioned by unusual handling of that but it is more important probably to go over the issues with your content additions which we will likely be in broad agreement were probably unsuitable for wikipedia practice, policies, norms, etc. Again I have to write this quickly before departing for somewhere at the last second.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The account in question was on the same exact IP address as you were, using a computer with the exact same technical details. That being said, I'm willing to AGF on this one, so long as you both know not to do it again. Unblocking, but this is a final warning of sorts. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

She was in my home with me. Visiting me. Talks of what's going on sort of led to the Wikipedia page story and she was outraged on my behalf. Not requesting an unblock. This happened. I admit it. Vidyutblogger (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edits on Supreme Leader

The primary issue with your additions to the article referred above was that they were disruptive — [1]. Wikipedia has a policy against this kind of disruption – please see WP:POINT ("do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point"). After your biographical article did not survive the AFD process, a friend of yours editing from an IP address ("Preethi") initiated deletion review – [2] – claiming that the deletion was "politically motivated". She also reproduced your comments or her own comments (it's not clear from the edits) that were posted on talk page of the administrator who had closed the AFD — [3]. Throughout this comment, your friend, who is likely the same individual as User:Sparebug, claimed foul-play and characterized the deletion process as "political vandalism". She claimed that "[s]ome of the delete recommendations [were] by users whose history reveals edits of interest to the ruling party", a general comment made without the production of any evidence, or pointing out the users specifically, likely aimed at muddying the waters and painting the entire process with the same brush. Her campaign of defamation ended with a parting shot claiming that some Wikipedians were using the encyclopedia to "refuse credibility to dissenters by fascist party rule", implying that some Wikipedians who had opined in favour of deletion were bed-fellows of the ruling party. Now, under normal circumstances, you would not be responsible for comments made by third parties unrelated to you. However, in the immediate case, you have admitted to meatpuppetry above, after a SOCK investigation concluded with a positive match, and corresponding blocks for both the accounts concerned. During the course of the DRV, you went ahead and added Narendra Modi, the leader of the "fascist ruling party", to the list at Supreme Leader (replete with citations), a list mostly populated by dictators and tyrants. Given the above context, can you tell me in all sincerity that this was a bonafide attempt not intended at baiting other users who had participated in the deletion discussions and gaming the system?

As regards the objective validity of your edits and suitability for inclusion on the subject page, even though your additions were accompanied by citations to various news reports, these may only be fairly characterized as fringe views of a non-substantive minority. That is, the sources referred above do not establish this as the mainstream view among a majority of available sources - whether the subject fashions himself as "Supreme Leader"? Or whether his party does so? Or whether third parties consistently regard him in such manner? While Wikipedia encourages its users to be bold and edit Wikipedia in a manner that improves its content, editors are also advised against using the project as a vehicle for advocacy, propaganda and POVpushing (see also WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:POVPUSH). @Djm-leighpark: For your reference, I believe this is the most appropriate venue to discuss the nature of the edits and conduct of this specific user. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"Given the above context, can you tell me in all sincerity that this was a bonafide attempt not intended at baiting other users who had participated in the deletion discussions and gaming the system? "

Yes, with all honesty I can say this was not baiting. I found the latest comment calling him Supreme Leader in the election coverage and that is how I landed up on the Supreme Leader page. I had no idea people who had participated in the deletion discussions would follow me there. Why would it be relevant? As for whether the subject fashions himself Supreme Leader? He speaks of himself in the third person, does not account for his actions to media, political questioning or public, does not defer to anyone. He takes major govt actions unilaterally without involving the ministers in question, cabinet, etc. His party spokespersons call him Supreme Leader, opposition calls him Supreme Leader, party propaganda calls him Supreme Leader. Fail to see how this doesn't qualify as "Supreme Leader", but say... entry before that - Nawaz Sharif does with zero references, but I think at this point, I am realizing the world of Wikipedia plays by its own rules. The "Twitter reference" was the official handle of a major TV channel in the country. All other references are also mainstream media, and if you don't like them, there should be plenty of alternative ones too. BTW, I did not put "fascist ruling party"! Where is the baiting in this? Seriously.

What is really going on here?

About the "Preethi" comments - I have no idea whatsoever who it is. I know many Preetis. No PreetHi. She claims to have spoken with me. She also appears to have used various comments made by me in different places, mostly Twitter. When the comment was made, I had not discussed the AfD or DRV in detail with anyone and I can confidently say no one had offered to edit it for me. I also don't know who made the article, for that matter or who "Britishfinance" is. The closest guess I have is my name was on a list of women from India for making Wikipedia pages from a UNESCO-Wikipedians event in Delhi. I was aware the event happened, and I promoted it on Twitter too, but I did not attend, nor do I have any idea who attended or who put my name on the list. I found the list after I found the AfD and was seeking to figure out who made the page in the wrong name. But that list is also probably the wrong answer, because that list (now seems to be deleted) had my correct name and linked to a Wikidata page that also made it clear that Vidyut Gore and Vidyut Kale were the same person - which clearly the author of this article was unaware of. So on this, I am completely ignorant and I am not going to discuss this further with Sparebug to find out, because I've had enough of that headache too. For what it is worth, I don't think it is her. Her name is not Preethi, and she genuinely seemed to discover the page and controversy when I told her about it. And she isn't on Twitter - which seems to be the source of stuff this "Preethi" says. If the article was made due to the UNESCO event, could possibly be someone who attended it. I have no contact whatsoever on that front.

• @Vidyutblogger: From my viewpoint you may very well have ended up here more primarily due to the actions of others, and in view of WP:BLPKINDNESS we should be allowing some benefit of doubt. And even if that is not the case going it is more important you can be guided towards making positive contributions in the future without picking up a WP:BLOCK or a WP:TBAN. I am of the opinion it is currently nearly impossible for you to edit pages associated with politics and certain other campaigns without running foul of WP:COIPOLITICAL and through that to into a host of other problems that would be like a tightrope to navigate successfully, even for an extremely experienced editor aware of all Wikipedia policies etc. If you really feel you must want a change on a page of such a related subject I strongly suggest you would need to go through and respect the WP:REQUESTEDIT method. For example if you had put that edit on Supreme leader via WP:REQUESTEDIT it or a variation may have been accepted ... however when dealing with WP:BLP the person actioning the request might need to be well beyond any reasonable doubt that the edit substantiated fairly by sources. I hope you find this as a positive suggestion of a way forward and some indication Wikipedia tries to aim to be neutral. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.

==Speedy deletion nomination of User:Vidyutblogger/sandbox/Vidyut Gore==

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Vidyutblogger/sandbox/Vidyut Gore, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ∯WBG^converse 18:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I've given up on Wikipedia. Too many policies, contradictions, counterintuitive stuff for a newcomer to figure out unless they plan to make a career out of Wikipedia. Feel free to delete the page. Vidyutblogger (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vidyutblogger: I successfully contested that deletion and have now copied your suggested references to a workpage of the article in draft space. While some/many would be unusable I thought I had spotted one of possible interest (I thought I'd seen it, I then have lost it and wondering which one I thought I seen) and some were possibly useful. The main issue was in the middle of the page where you may have been seen as self-promoting yourself as a soap-star from a primary website. I've actually removed that from the workpage as there is no chance of that being usable. (If your soap had an independent review for in PC magazine for being the most effective way to restore a scratched DVD or apple mouse balls that would be a different matter). The Apple mouse balls might work as I recall once was working at a company with Mac 68k based desktops and I'd regularly used to have to remove the ball to the bathroom to scrub it with soap and a toothbrush ... let alone coming in in the morning and when it wouldn't start and pulling the top off, taking the power supply out waving it in the air saying O great Mac please start then putting it all back together and off it would go). Back from digression to more formality as a relatively newbie it is unfortunate you have probably witnessed and a fair bit of let us say chaos spreading around a number of people you have contacted with. From a practical viewpoint:

• Removal of the references to soap in the middle of the sandbox page would be great as most would regard that as promotional.
• Simply editing the sandbox to some form of test such as replacing all content with for example This is a test would solve any issues almost totally and the links can be regained from a old revision if necessary
• If you blank your sandbox completely then it will be regarded as author requested deletion and all revisions of it will be removed.

Hope this helps. Improvements to article in draftspace have currently stalled due to other priorities. Thankyou.13:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The soaps will soon feature in yet another interview. This time of soapmakers in India. Will figure it out then. Vidyutblogger (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference for the soaps https://eshe.in/2019/05/04/vidyut-gore/ I will figure out what to do with the sandbox page soon. Though I will probably delete, given that there is no point me making a page about myself. Vidyutblogger (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thankyou. Interesting read. From a Wikipedia viewpoint (and I am not the best judge) I have suggested it should probably be considered as press release. I have wayback archived it (An url that cannot be permanently archived is about as much use a ...) and placed the reference and note on the draft workpage, my personal view is it may be likely considered for some non-contentious references.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, there is no news coverage of me that I initiate. Zero. No press releases, no "media contacts" organizing interviews, nothing. I merely have a Twitter account that is popular and am a person who does a lot of things that are out of the ordinary. Various journalists who follow find various things noteworthy, and interview me about them. Sometimes it is some spoof site I make, or an opinion worth mentioning, or something I grow or make or choose, or suffer... In most cases, it is my first and only interaction with that journalist. That is why coverage about me is all over the place. Victim of domestic violence or censorship? Soap maker or activist or "behavioral scientist" or political commentator or journalist? Journos write what aspect they see relevant to what they cover. Heck most of the time, they don't even quote/report accurately. Press releases or organized coverage would be way more coherent. Just stating for the record, because the DRV discussion also called my coverage organized. Vidyutblogger (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if my suggested treatment of that upset you or seemed to cast aspirations against your character. I think I need to pragmatically gatekeep what will be accepted at scrutiny at AfD if necessary. And minimize interaction without losing civility, humanity etc. ... I'm sort of guaranteed to be not perfect or even consistent in those efforts. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not mean in the sense that I was offended. Merely as information, because in my brief time here, there seems to be an assumption of promotional coverage many times. I did not mean that you were casting aspersions. My apologies if that came across as defensive. Vidyutblogger (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A note of encouragement

Vidyut, I believe that you have sufficient expertise to contribute and improve our content-quality on topics that you specialize in.

But,

(a) You need to refrain from tending to your autobiographical interests (it's very difficult to write with a conflict-of-interest and it's absolutely forbidden). If you are indeed notable by our standards, some volunteer will write an article about you.

(b) Secondly, you need to abide by neutral point-of-view religiously.

There is a art of writing about figures, (who may seem to be absolutely despicable to us), but w/o going into crude gossip-zine territory. For an interesting example, see my write-up of N. S. Rajaram; no serious scholar treats him any favorably and most deem him to be a pro-Hindutva lunatic fringe. But, I didn't resort to writing a hit-piece about him but yet managed to convey that he is an entirely discredited scholar.

This edit of yours' was a fairly good edit by newbie standards (I surely fared worse, when I first arrived) but ultimately got reverted -- that's because whilst Modi undeniably has a cult personality; there is not an abundance of sources across the spectrum that elevates him to a Supreme Leader. To be fair, there will always be two or three sources that can be cited to support damn any point of view about Modi; from being very pro to hardcore-anti. Think the coverage of ABP Hindi and Republic TV for the former kind and The Telegraph, Calcutta for the latter kind. In these situations, we always prefer to go by scholarly sources or foreign sources. Does there exist a considerable amount of scholars, who indeed see the rise of a Supreme-Leader like cult as to Modi's growth? Does any scholar deny that? Accordingly, we write out. Also remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.

There exists a maze of policies and guidelines (which are often seemingly self-contradictory, as you say) but most of them are as good as not worth remembering at all. I don't believe that there exists a single user who knows all of them. Try editing on relatively non-controversial topics (esp. avoid biographies and political areas) to get a grip on the rules and then slowly, expand your horizon:-)

At the end of the day, you must write reliably sourced stuff with due emphasis on weighing differential view points (if there exists, any) and self-check that your own biases is not affecting your writing. That's it, in a nutshell. ∯WBG^converse 20:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you. I didn't actually land up here to make a page about myself. lol. Someone found a page about me that they told me about, but it was in a name I no longer use, so I got involved, trying to get that fixed, because I am really trying to leave that surname behind and last thing I need is a Wikipedia entry promoting it. One thing led to another and it was quite a mess. Got nominated for deletion, then review, then now recreation and god knows what else to come. I looked up a few references that I think mean more than what was used in the article, so put them together, hoping that my "claim to fame" isn't as a victim - whether domestic abuse or censorship (and in real life, it isn't). Then the sandbox page I was compiling them on got nominated for deletion. In the meanwhile Wikipedia provides instructions on how to edit your own article, while actually doing it is a big CoI no-no.... confusing doesn't begin to cover it. I'm not really into editing Wikipedia, and frankly, right now, I'm more wary than eager. Thank you for the goodwill though. Perhaps I'll give it another shot with time, with other interesting subjects. For now, I'm sticking to this talk page :D Vidyutblogger (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)