User talk:FreddyMercurial

''Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?'' (Wikipedia)

Other accounts
Please list all of the accounts you have used. JBW (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not saying this with any kind of arrogance at all (text can come across that way), but I'm not sure if I'm obliged to list them here. But if you do know them already, and this post was only to confirm, you will notice that my accounts, which have been made to contribute in disparate fields such as culture, literature, or social sciences, have only been productive with no record of breaching WikiPolicy, edit-warring, dispute, or any animosity towards anyone. When I'm not the first to do this, and am only working with good intentions, I honestly do not feel comfortable at all declaring them. But if you've seen them already, and studied their edit histories, you will know that my claim of spotless contribution is not a lie. But, still, if you think I've failed anywhere in my conduct or my edits, I'll be happy to hear your feedback on e-mail. Given that I'm not acting out of ill-will or malicious intentions, I'm not comfortable with an open declaration... Best, FreddyMercurial (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FreddyMercurial, as per WP:MULTIACCOUNT "It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages; templates such as User alternative account or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose". GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, GSS. I have now read it. But as you can notice (if you can see my other accounts), I have only been quietly making positive contributions in other areas and not, as the link states, to "comment on proposals or requests, cast votes, or engage in edit warring". In fact, I can assure you that the accounts did not develop out of some grand scheme to subvert Wikipedia; they emerged naturally on days I was hovering on a particular page before randomly creating another account; boredom, too, might have played a role, and a password was forgotten and recalled. I see it is only "recommended" and not required (required, maybe for those who are being disruptive). So, for the time being, I would like to keep it as is, but it would be nice to hear from you on email, if you think I've fallen short anywhere, Thank you FreddyMercurial (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

paid?
You likely know this already, so perhaps just take it as a reminder. If it doesn't apply to you, great. Anokhi reads like a paid-for article. If you are a paid editor, the terms of use require that you disclose that. Instructions are at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am amazed, though not surprised :) I openly, and for the historical record of eternity, state that I am not a paid editor. In fact, I only created the article after bringing up its previous deletion at User talk:Sandstein (the last deletion was a TV show, not this brand). As I only stated facts backed by the most reliable/highest-quality sources, your notice frankly stung a bit. But now that you're here, and if you're willing to offer some genuine constructive feedback, can you please parse the sources and the content, and let me know why it reads like a paid article, and if there is any single line that should not have been in the article, or is not sourced properly? That would be immensely helpful, and go some way to allay the deleterious effects of this notice.. With thanks, FreddyMercurial (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S. - Here are other articles I created which use similar type of sourcing (books and reliable newspapers) : Martand Singh (textile conservator) and Indigo (restaurant) (permanently closed). All three are up for DYKs if you're inclined... Thanks, FreddyMercurial (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , Sure, I'll give you an example. Of course the NYT is often an excellent source. But it is not always, and using it to pad references is a common technique used by paid editors. For example, when you cite https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/t-magazine/fashion/india-beat-hand-block-printing-bertie-victoria-dyer.html to reference the statement "In the 1970s, the brand helped revive traditional Rajasthani block-printing, which was then in decline due to industrialisation and the proliferation of machine-made garments." The entire content of the source, as it relates to Anokhi is "The founders of Anokhi essentially revived the hand-block printing industry in the 1960s and ’70s. Their flagship store is a must-see.” It's a quote from a couple that run a trip-planners, in an article from the Style Magazine about the couple's "their favorite ways to pass the time in Jaipur". This is not the serious reporting on which the Time's reputation for excellence rests, although it's worth noting that the times is one of the few newspapers that does not accept free trips is return for an "independent" review, they pay their own way. That citation is completely superfluous and there are much better sources that describe what they did to revive hand-block printing. So naturally, its use raises some eyebrows and invites further scrutiny. Something else that caught my eye was the recurring use of "brand", another PR favorite. Anokhi is a Private Limited Company (in India, in the US it's Omain.inc doing business as Anokhi). That would be the more encyclopedic way of describing what the subject is.


 * As for the "deleterious effects" of my reminder that the Terms of Use require disclosure of paid editing, there is no malicious in such a reminder, and I'm happy to to see that it was unnecessary. Vexations (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such an exhaustive response. I was not conscious of the problematic usage of "brand" (as I went by the Category available: Clothing brands of India) but I've made it "retailer" if that's okay (in DYK and the article). You're right about the NYT link, but while researching I found 4-5 of them and didn't know which to put where to back which claim. I think for that point The Economist source works best so I've added it there too..Thanks again for taking the time and giving your constructive inputs! FreddyMercurial (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Martand Singh (textile conservator)
Hello! Your submission of Martand Singh (textile conservator) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Indigo (restaurant)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Martand Singh (textile conservator)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anokhi
Hello! Your submission of Anokhi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Anokhi
Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  12:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Sunil Kant Munjal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sunil Kant Munjal 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 Articles for deletion/Sunil Kant Munjal 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. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)