User talk:Khemotaj

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cropin 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/Cropin 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.

Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't want to bite new or inexperienced editors but your editing history exhibits some unusual characteristics. As a relatively inexperienced/new editor, you may not have been familiar with WP:COI. If you are connected with subject matter on which you are contributing or receiving payment for editing, please make the appropriate declarations. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighKing, I obviously don't want to question your intention or motivation but I witnessed a very clear resistance from you in the discussion in keeping the article even after it became widely clear that the topic is highly notable. Its likely that I am guilty of the fact that I have successfully refuted a number of yours arguments and highlighted false claims made by you. So, you are now questioning about my integrity. But I am not affiliated to any party here. I had a wish to create a number of pages in Wikipedia other than what I have created already including some agri tech firms which are highly underrepresented in Wikipedia. I have been enjoying the argumentation with you in the deletion discussion but until this message, which I think was absolutely unnecessary. I will need to think if its at-all worth devoting time here just to get accused of lack of integrity from an experienced user like you. I would love to keep our interaction in a friendly and productive manner, but only if you want the same. It may not mean anything to you, but it takes extensive hardwork to do a good research and write a through article. Please don't use the tools of false claims and implicit hostility from your privileged experienced position which may intimidate lesser experienced editors like me, its a humble request. Khemotaj (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox edits are very unusual and perhaps you are not aware but is a technique used to boost the "edit count" of an editor to make their "interests" appear more diverse than they actually are and also to give the appearance of engagement beyond WP:SPA. In addition, over the past few weeks, the community has uncovered a widespread number of socking accounts and UPE accounts - there's even a discussion ongoing at WP:COIN noticeboard. Now ... your response is also ... most interesting. For the record, I did not "question your integrity" as you claim. I pointed you to WP:COI because it would be unreasonable to expect an inexperienced editor like you to know about that policy - just as it is unreasonable to expect an inexperienced editor to know the ins and outs of NCORP guidelines. You don't conduct yourself like an inexperienced editor. Have you edited under a different username in the past??? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making your intentions very clear. You are very much keen to keep this communication based on your presumed impressions. For the record, I never claimed myself to be inexperienced editor, I said I am less experienced than you (which you can obviously dispute as you are disputing almost all my statements). Its you who put that adjective first in your so called polite notice. Its also you who are clearly trying to frame something against me (which you will deny, but its evident from your comments). I don't think I am compelled to answer your interrogations when you are only showing bad intentions. Also to repeat, I don't want to get into argumentations with you any further... I have lost any such "interests"... which I had a few days back. So, its a request, please stick to your deletion discussion conclusion that there is little point continuing this discussion. Lastly, I never claimed that I know ins and outs of NCORP guidelines, its again your wordings which you tried to impose on me. By any chance if you have any good intention and real wish to help me understanding The policies like NCORP, ORGID please let me know what you think in the set of references of Zydus Wellness were different than that of Cropin that makes the former notable and made you cast a keep comment for it. Khemotaj (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2022 (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 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 ~~~~}}.  MER-C 08:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Khemotaj

Thank you for creating Political and Literary Annals.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]