User talk:Amarnathcb

September 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Building information modeling has been reverted. Your edit here to Building information modeling was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/groups/540856349420665/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Amarnathcb, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hello, I'm Yintan. I noticed that in this edit to Building information modeling, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Yinta n  10:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2017
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Building information modeling. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide independent reliable sources to establish the organization's encyclopedic relevance and use neutral uninvolved language instead of excessive details about the organizations "vision" and "mission". Such subjective self-presentation is irrelevant in an encyclopedia - Wikipedia is no venue to promote organizations and their agenda. If you disagree, please use the article talkpage for discussion and provide indepedent reliable sources to support your suggested addition. Also, please make sure to read Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" guideline at WP:COI. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Building information modeling‎ - independent sources
Hello Amarnathcb, when adding content please provide independent reliable sources (see WP:RS) for verification. Wikipedia is no venue to promote non-notable products, your own research or your own personal website. Also, editing with a clear "conflict of interest" is strongly discouraged (see WP:COI). Please read the linked guidelines and do not edit-war to insert promotional content. If you disagree, you should use the article talkpage at Talk:Building information modeling‎ for discussion. As as editor with a conflict of interest, you can also add sourced edit requests there (simply click "request corrections or suggest content" on top of the talkpage to add a sourced suggestion). Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Your mail
Hello Amarnathcb, thank you for your mail. I hope you don't mind when I answer your comments here - unless the issue is confidential, discussions should be kept to open forums to provide transparency and to give other editors a chance to add their own comments if they wish to. The distinction between Indian and non-Indian source doesn't matter for Wikipedia (all reliable sources are fine regardless of their origin), but sources should be "independent" from you and your organization. A supporter listing, a seminar description and your own website are not "independent" sources. Please make sure to read WP:RS for Wikipedia's criteria regarding reliable sources. I'll also note, that "spreading awareness" and "giving good exposure" is not Wikipedia's purpose: in an encyclopedic project content should be based on information, that has already been published in acknowledged reliable sources (usually independent from the covered subject). If you can provide such a source, please feel free to suggest a brief addition at Talk:Building information modeling‎ - the article talkpage is usually the best place to discuss such changes and to find consensus in cases of disagreements. Uninvolved editors can then discuss and possibly implement your suggestion. Hope that helps a bit to clarify Wikipedia's content guidelines. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)