User talk:Shivamevolution

Shivamevolution, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Shivamevolution! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shivam Patil.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mentabolism (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Shivam Patil (August 8)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shivam Patil.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 15:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Shivam Patil was accepted

Shivam Patil, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Shivam Patil. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Your additions are promotional and not written in an encyclopaedic tone; please propose changes to the talk page. LGA _talk^edits 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, tone fixed. --Shivamevolution (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you have, but I am now not going to edit the page due to WP:3RR, There are still sections unsourced and it is still promotional. LGA _talk^edits 23:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could help me out and bring attention to which bits are still promotional? I'll also cut out anything that's unsourced, though I don't know if there is any reliable reference for Shivam Patil's education on the internet. Also kindly remove the sections you feel require citations or sources, reducing the article to a 2 line stub makes no sense. There's a lot of referenced information you remove when you do that. --Shivamevolution (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Blogs are not reliably published sources. Patil is not a reliable source for self promotional claims that he won awards. see WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shivam Patil. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Despite an earlier block for edit warring, albeit with the use of sockpuppets, you seem to be returning to the same behavior after the expiry of the block. If you continue to do so, and/or use Wikipedia as a fansite or hagiography promoter, you will be blocked again. —SpacemanSpiff 15:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I just felt determining the number of reviews that should be on the page in an arbitrary manner, without seeing the differing perspectives provided, was a tad too much. I think consensus has been reached now, but kindly have a look at the edits to determine if there's anything at all that is hagiographic. Eitherways, do have a look at the talk page of the user disputing multiple well-cited edits I made. There's plenty of complaints from others there, including a final warning. I was only expanding the article here when the unnecessary dispute began.--Shivamevolution (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one, but multiple users have tried to clean up this article after you as you seem to repeatedly add every individual positive mention of the person here. This is not a place to post a resume or hagiography, Wikipedia articles follow a neutral perspective which also includes identifying what's relevant etc. At least two different people have reverted you today, but you seem to keep carrying on, not reading the edit summaries, not bothering to open a talk page discussion etc. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll keep that in mind, although I've consciously tried keeping it neutral. The reason it looks like that is because the only sources I find are all positive mentions. Any way, I think the editors have reached some extent of consensus for now. The thing is, while I'm trying to contribute in an encyclopedic way and expanding the page, it doesn't help that someone comes around and just reduces the article to a 2-line stub, erasing a lot of well-referenced data. In other cases, there are bad edits, major grammatical errors, or vandalizing. So when I revert those, it looks like I'm edit warring. I will post on the talk page the next time there is a dispute, thank you for the pointer.--Shivamevolution (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]