User talk:Deepa vasudevan

August 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Onam—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, You seem to be editing/ reversing content which you have absolutely no idea about.

Here's my 2 bits- remove religious content from cultural pages. If you don't understand the context, refrain. Learn and then come editing. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Onam, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even understand the topic of Onam? If you did, you wouldn't object to removal of an irrelevant section. Let me try to explain to you- if there is a topic on easter, and there is a section on why islam prohibits celebrating easter, do you think it should be part of the main content? Deepa vasudevan (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Onam, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edited content is not relevant to the topic. Unnecessarily religion has been brought into a cultural occassion and is totally misleading and has sinister objectives. Please move the content on islam to islam related pages. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The content has been deleted as it has no relevance to the topic Onam, a cultural Hindu festival. By bringing Islam into it, the writer of the piece "Onam and Islam" is being mischievous and sinister. The Do's and Don't of Islam should be on a page dedicated to Islam not on a page about a Hindu cultural event, Onam. To block the content without any understanding of the topic or culture is a sign of idiocy. Please educate yourself before blocking an edit of a person who knows the subject.

Decline reason:

The content is not blocked, you are blocked. Please educate yourself on how to make an appeal before making your next appeal. Cabayi (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

While you are blocked from editing you retain access to your user talk page for the purpose of appealing your block. If you continue to use it for other purposes your talk page access will be revoked for the duration of your block.

Your changes need to be based on sources, not on your assertion that you are a subject expert. reliable, verifiable, independent sources are needed.

Throwing around terms like "idiocy" can be seen as a personal attack which may lead to a longer block. "Play the ball and not the man". Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the woods for the trees again?? It is idiotic ( not the person, but the behavior) to not have a cultural understanding and simply reverting relevant edits. Do not threaten with blocking. There will be more people who will find this content mischievous and edit it. The community is what makes wikipedia a resource, not an individual with a misplaced sense of power. Yes I am blocked, not the content. You missed the point I was trying to make. The edits were reverted because the person who reverted (the content) and blocked( me not the content) has little understanding of the subject or the culture. This is my culture, my festival. I can point it out when Wikipedia is wrong. This is the relevant link to the festival- https://www.keralatourism.org/onam-festival. Perhaps, you should have better qualified people to assess which edits are offensive and which are not. Go ahead, feel free to block for a longer time for trying to educate you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepa vasudevan (talk • contribs) 09:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Yes. Please do not remove the thread. It will useful in showing the "skills" of the admins and moderators. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. You are blocked because of your conduct, not because of the content. I dealt with your appeal which focused on the content. No appeal will be successful until you address your conduct.

Any point you make about content while you are blocked is superfluous. Cabayi (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Conduct? My dear, I was blocked for editing a mischievous religious content out of a cultural topic. And what's with all this bullying and threats? Deepa vasudevan (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do elaborate on this "conduct" that you keep referring to. I will understand and address it. :) Deepa vasudevan (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I an not your dear. You were blocked for repeatedly removing material. Doing so once, and being reverted, is quite normal. It is expected that you will then engage in discussion about the proposed changes per WP:BRD. Repeatedly removing the material is edit warring.

There is no bullying or threatening. Having declined your appeal, I will not use admin tools in dealing with you over this incident. I am merely informing you of what the community expects of you and the consequences of continuing to edit in defiance of policy. Cabayi (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you what happened. I edited. I couldn't see it in live. So I edited again assuming something is erroneous at my end. Till I saw the block notice( I hadn't noticed the notifications till then. My bad). That's when I realized someone was reverting at the same instance. This person( the one who reverted) is either ignorant, an ill equipped bot or an Islamist. There is no other logical reason for a revert like this. If you had done a due diligence as an admin, you would have figured out what happened. There was no intent to vandalise the page or any other maleficent objective.

But yes, it requires lot more maturity and objectivity to handle cases like these( This is not personal but a comment on the quality of judgement).

And yes, the continuous talk about blocking/ lengthening the block is a threat particularly when the person on the other end has no history of vandalising.

Please do share the link for reporting admins / moderators. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Onam, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The source is BSE i.e the Bombay Stock Exchange, one of the 2 stock exchanges in India and a reliable source of information on a company's financial performance. Please undo the deletion. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ramco Cements, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Financial information on revenue is not advertising. Nor is the information about the integration with India's rail missions. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing[edit]

Hello Deepa vasudevan. 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 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 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:Deepa vasudevan. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Deepa vasudevan|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. Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

paid editing again[edit]

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Deepa vasudevan, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Deepa vasudevan|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and again[edit]

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the published content is from me. So go ahead and block. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the published content is from me. So go ahead and block. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, you have to disclose even if you have never made a single edit and you are strongly discouraged from making edits to any article with which you have a COI, paid or unpaid, even after you disclose. --ARose Wolf 12:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf you have to disclose even if you have never made a single edit is incorrect. By that logic, all Wikipedians would have to disclose our employers, regardless of whether we wrote about them on Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. What I should have said and did not accurately do so is that edits were made and reverted but that the edits are still in the history of the article so though it appears that edits were not made they were which caused Theroadislong to question their connection. I apologize for not getting the proper message across. It sounded better in my head. --ARose Wolf 12:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]