User talk:Smileverse

Ways to improve Air Costa

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Smileverse, thanks for creating Air Costa!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. .

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to 1 (2014 film), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Because Bangalorean is not a Reliable source. Raghusri 16:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Travertine Mart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Services (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Digital Locker (India)

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 Digital Locker (India), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Ball valve. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Micojack (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry If you have seen any citation which is not reliable, I have no intention to add links for promotion and I'm no way belong to any of those references. While I'm searching on Google for information about ball valves I picked few sites which are information and thought reliable enough to be citation on the ball valve page/subject. Thanks for helping me identify non-reliable link. Mohith:) 17:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GotUrethane

The article GotUrethane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. There is no coverage by any reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to GotUrethane, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Micojack (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, It's a mistake. I can see reliable citation in Google news so removed template. Any ways, I will try to improve this page by adding reliable citations. thanks Mohith:) 17:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of GotUrethane for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GotUrethane 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/GotUrethane until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Saurav Dutt

The article Saurav Dutt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR; the subject has not received coverage from more than one reliable source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the creation of this article violates the conflict of interest guidelines, because you have written a promotional piece about the subject on your website. Many of the pages you are creating are for non-notable subjects, and you need to disclose if you have a conflict of interest with subjects about which you are writing. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is having notability. This author is having books published and also listed on Google books. I'm adding those as references to provide the notability of this subject. Thanks for suggestion. Mohith:) 07:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Saurav Dutt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saurav Dutt 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/Saurav Dutt until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing for pay?

Hi there Smileverse. I'm a volunteer on conflict of interest related subjects and came across your contributions in relation to another editor. I have a simple question: are you paid for the things you write about on Wikipedia? If the answer is yes, it's not the end of the world, but there are some things you will have to do to continue editing here. You can just repky here, I'll be watching for an answer. Thanks. Brianhe (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smileverse, I agree with Brianhe; it is very important that you work to meet the terms of use. There are several well known paid editors that seem to get by just fine, but there's a certain amount of transparency that is needed. Please respond. Kuru (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. I do agree, I work for Bangalorean.net but that doesn't mean I'm getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. It's just my interest contributing Wikipedia but no intention of advertising/promotion. The only mistake I ever did is authoring the same subject on Bangalorean.net and Wikipedia. If that's not allowed, Okay, I'm sorry! I request unblock and I can stand with all guidelines. I have only one account i.e. Smileverse and I felt bad for the block on me, I do understand there is a violation, As I agreed I authored articles on Bangalorean and Wikipedia, I'm not aware that it's wrong, I didn't realize it is considered as COI. Hope I will get unblocked, Thanks & Sorry Mohith:) 19:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What about Langoor?—SpacemanSpiff 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used to Work there, When I came across multiple news sources talking about the company and it's founder, I created Langoor page by citing to the news sources which I found on Google news. Later it was edited by other editors which I'm not aware of. I do promise, I do not have any intent to advertise/spam. It's just I read good amount of news articles and thought I can create Wikipedia page. Mohith:) 19:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hello, I'm not getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. I do agree, I work for Bangalorean.net but that doesn't mean I'm getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. It's just my interest contributing Wikipedia but no intention of advertising/promotion. The only mistake I ever did is authoring the same subject on Bangalorean.net and Wikipedia. If that's not allowed, Okay, I'm sorry! I request unblock and I can stand with all guidelines. I have only one account i.e. Smileverse and I felt bad for the block on me, I do understand there is a violation, As I agreed I authored articles on Bangalorean and Wikipedia, I'm not aware that it's wrong, I didn't realize it is considered as COI. Hope I will get unblocked Mohith:) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, I'm not getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. I do agree, I work for Bangalorean.net but that doesn't mean I'm getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. It's just my interest contributing Wikipedia but no intention of advertising/promotion. The only mistake I ever did is authoring the same subject on Bangalorean.net and Wikipedia. If that's not allowed, Okay, I'm sorry! I request unblock and I can stand with all guidelines. I have only one account i.e. Smileverse and I felt bad for the block on me, I do understand there is a violation, As I agreed I authored articles on Bangalorean and Wikipedia, I'm not aware that it's wrong, I didn't realize it is considered as COI. Hope I will get unblocked Mohith:) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, I'm not getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. I do agree, I work for Bangalorean.net but that doesn't mean I'm getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. It's just my interest contributing Wikipedia but no intention of advertising/promotion. The only mistake I ever did is authoring the same subject on Bangalorean.net and Wikipedia. If that's not allowed, Okay, I'm sorry! I request unblock and I can stand with all guidelines. I have only one account i.e. Smileverse and I felt bad for the block on me, I do understand there is a violation, As I agreed I authored articles on Bangalorean and Wikipedia, I'm not aware that it's wrong, I didn't realize it is considered as COI. Hope I will get unblocked Mohith:) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, I'm not getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. I do agree, I work for Bangalorean.net but that doesn't mean I'm getting paid for editing on Wikipedia. It's just my interest contributing Wikipedia but no intention of advertising/promotion. The only mistake I ever did is authoring the same subject on Bangalorean.net and Wikipedia. If that's not allowed, Okay, I'm sorry! I request unblock and I can stand with all guidelines. I have only one account i.e. Smileverse and I felt bad for the block on me, I do understand there is a violation, As I agreed I authored articles on Bangalorean and Wikipedia, I'm not aware that it's wrong, I didn't realize it is considered as COI. Hope I will get unblocked Mohith:) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SmartSE (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Enrico Thanhoffer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enrico Thanhoffer 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/Enrico Thanhoffer (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]