User talk:Princehr999

]
Please stop assuming

@

want to talk? 15:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@CaptainEek: Hello Captain, please look at all my responses and also at this person's responses. What makes him feel I have a conflict of interest ? You yourself went through the article and also verified it. How can this user claim that I have a conflict of interest. And I did not commit any crime by saying that he is a follower of other Guru. I went through his page and found that he is spiritually inclined towards some leader other than the subject of my article. I am surprised by his behavior because he is trying to purposely bring down the article. Why is he behaving like a child and trying to point towards unnecessary things. I have said him multiple times to at least discuss the problems he is having regarding the article with me. It will help me improve the article. But he is not ready to discuss but wants to just complain and forcibly edit the page.

Is this the policy of Wikipedia to randomly edit pages because of some personal hatred or problem, rather than discussing them first ? I am ready to discuss the problems ::@Harshil169: is having with the article, but his arrogant way of talking and threatening to block my account itself shows that he doesn't want the page to stay on Wikipedia for reasons I am unaware of. Please ask this user to resolve the issues through discussion rather than spoiling the article. At least start the discussion somewhere rather than just complaining.

Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read

want to talk? 16:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Threatening to block my account just because I am trying to defend an article from spam edits ? Is that what you call civility ? Please have the decency to talk on Wikipedia forum. I am still waiting to hear at least one logical argument from your side why you want the page to be deleted. If you have some problem with my language, may be you are right because my language is not polished like yours. I don't pretend. But I do have the decency to talk at least. I repeat: Calling someone a follower is not a crime. I just reported what I saw, just like you reported what you saw. So how am I the violator here ?17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Princehr999 (talk)

Nominating this page straight up for deletion itself shows that you have some personal problem. I am defending this page not because I have some association with the subject of the article, but because I want to know the shortcomings in this article and why it should be deleted in the first place. Everyone is here to learn and improve, including me and you. So why not be polite in our discussion and rather discuss the main thing here. Please let me know your point of view in detail so I can improve the article content. You are constantly trying to teach me Wikipedia policies but you happen to forget the very basic one: DO TRY TO SORT THE ISSUE THROUGH DISCUSSION BEFORE ENGAGING IN EDIT WARS. I have tried my best to ask you for discussing the matter. But you seem to have some predefined motives and are avoiding discussion at all levels. Princehr999 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am glad that you are ready to begin the discussion. And I never attacked you. I have full rights to put my point of view. Talking about attacking other editors: You are making false accusations against me saying I have a COI. I guess you are the one who is attacking someone here. Don't you think it would have been appropriate to support your accusation with at least one valid proof ? You hurry to make false accusations but fail to give proof when asked. Is that what you expect me to do as well ? I can't have that attitude like yours, I believe in talking with facts and proofs. I am talking with a cool mind, but getting confused by looking at your mixed responses. Some times you accuse me, sometimes you display your personal hatred towards the subject of the article, and are trying to avoid fact-based discussion. Please take initiative to start a mature discussion. Thanks and regards Princehr999 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princehr999, Harshil is being most chill here. You should also remember to be chill. Harshil has some good points, that I'll be honest, I missed. I am not familiar with Indian issues, and thus assumed that the original title was his name, like a western name would be. That was an enlightening error on my part, as it turns out that was in fact not neutral at all. I did not see the forest through the trees, and in hindsight should not have accepted the article. It still has serious POV issues, and is overly promotional of the subject. Please be civil, and talk only about the content issues that Harshil has raised. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize for being impatient and will be chill from now. What should I do in improving this article ? Princehr999 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

indicates that you are being paid for your editorial activities. Please provide relevant disclosure, pursuant to the format mentioned by Harshil in one of his previous messages. ∯WBG^converse 06:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being paid for anything on Wikipedia. The discussion with Harshil got heated because he was trying to dictate the tone of the article without discussing any details. I wrote this article passionately since it's my first article on Wikipedia. But to be clear once again, I have no association with the subject of the article. I already told in my discussion that I am ready to improve the article if someone guides me to. I will still improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Regarding the reliability of sources, why do you think that sources are not reliable ? They are from well reputed newspapers and official government websites. I would appreciate if you will guide me which references are unreliable in your view.

What else this draft needs in order to be able to be included in article space ??

I have seen many articles on Wikipedia which are much shorter than mine, have much less references and have lesser quality of references than the ones I have used.

I guess the reason that you have moved the article to draft is because of my heated discussion with Harshil, for which I have already apologized.

I find it unfair that such a well researched article which was earlier accepted has now been moved to draft.

Please reconsider your decision of reverting the article to draft. The references are indeed reliable and independent. I request you to again have a thorough look. I will keep working on improving the quality of the content but I feel it should be in the article space.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It regards Kumar Swami and some longstanding issues around it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kumar Swami, 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
  Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
  for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See
  section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
  .

Hello. Your recent edit to Noida appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kumar Swami is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Swami until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PabloMartinez (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]