Talk:63 Moons Technologies

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Financial Technologies Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090724063451/http://www.atomtech.in:80/atom-card.html to http://atomtech.in/atom-card.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing bias
The article needs clean-up, made some edits in that direction. Refer WP:Vandalism and WP:POV Adamtheroux (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamtheroux (talk • contribs) 07:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Initiating Edits
While reviewing the page, it came to my notice that the article is devoid of relevant information in the Products section. My research suggests that the company has initiated several solutions/products that must be listed as opposed to the few that are listed currently. Additionally, the NSEL case section should be merged into the Subsidiaries section listing the important subsidiaries of FTIL. I’m in the process of completing my research and will be making edits accordingly. Suggestions and help are welcome in the matter. Thank you.Titan356 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert Content Deletion
Financial Technologies Group is a renowned organization in India that has contributed to some notable developments in the country. The content that was uploaded on the page briefed about the processes, operations and solutions offered by the organization. Also, the structure it followed is the conventional structure most organization pages adhere to on Wikipedia. Neither does it promote the products or services of the group, nor does it disclose pricing of the commodities. The page reflects a neutral tonality and propagates unbiased information. The information provided on the page is backed by credible citations as well. Therefore, how can it be labelled as promotional content? I, hereby, request you to kindly revert the changes that were made or allow me to add back the content that was previously uploaded. If you reckon otherwise, please let me know your suggestions for the same to make this page more credible. Titan356 (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTPROMO. In general, most content in an article should be cited to reliable, independent sources. The content in this one was not. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thank you for replying. I understand the concerns in regard to the citations. However, the content published was cited to reliable and independent sources of credible news houses like The Times of India, Business Standard, The Economic Times, etc. These are all independent news houses that have published various notable news articles in the past. So, I request you to kindly reconsider your decision as the information provided are factual, unbiased and objective, and allow me to add back the content of the page. Titan356 (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of it was not cited to reliable and independent sources (blog.thevoiceofnation.com, 63moons.com, pgurus.com, shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in, and others). The parts of it that were cited to good sources were written in heavy promotional language that was not always faithful to the source, either. The content was so poor that I would have been justified in nominating the article for speedy deletion; I removed the promotional content as a less drastic alternative. If you think phrases like "Jignesh Shah is a first generation entrepreneur whose efforts pioneered Make in India concept way before it was conceptualized." are "factual, unbiased, and objective", you should not be editing this article. I see that you are the editor responsible for most of the content I removed; you also removed the (sourced) allegations about financial misconduct. You need to go read WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO very carefully before making any more edits here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi First of all, I would like to Thank you for replying. I understand your concern and will adhere to the Wikipedia Guidelines. The issue with the content can be resolved by changing the tonality to put forward a more neutral point of view rather than requesting for the speedy deletion. However, the citations that were provided contain crucial information about the organization. The services and solutions it provides are mentioned in links such as 63moons.com, etc. For your information, 63 moons technologies is the foremost company to provide innovations and solutions in financial markets which has been listed in both NSE & BSE, thus submits its compliance information and financial statements to the exchanges on a regular basis. Therefore, I request you kindly allow me to use the citations from such a credible source. Titan356 (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not; 63moons is the company's own website, and is thus not an independent source. Given how much you've pushed for it, I have to ask; are you affiliated in any way with this company? If so, please go read WP:COI. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am an independent user trying to build a credible profile on Wikipedia. I was pushing it as I wanted to make some significant contributions to the page. However, I understand your concern in regard to the violations of the Wikipedia guidelines and will make further changes accordingly. Titan356 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Revised content for the page
Hi,

I have prepared the content for this page. But, given the history of edit war on this page, I would ask someone to review it first. Please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Titan356/. Titan356 (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This content is not substantially altered in tone from the promotional material I dumped previously. Many of the theoretically independent sources are also obviously based on press releases, and aren't genuinely independent. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)