User talk:Pushkaraj1405

April 2021
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to PDF. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Hello, I'm Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kadambini Ganguly, but you didn't provide sufficient reliable sources. I've trimmed down stuff you added to make the article more encyclopaedic. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 14:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

GNP Times
Hi - you were advised previously that adding links to GNP Times was not appropriate. I see that all of your edits since then have been to add content to articles, using GNP Times as a citation. Please stop doing that: it is not a reliable source, as defined by our guidelines, and your apparent affiliation with the website gives the impression that you are engaging in WP:CITESPAM. If you persist with this, your account may be blocked from editing. Only add content based on citations to reliable sources that you are not affiliated with. Thank you. Girth Summit  (blether) 10:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - I asked you to stop citing that source. I appreciate the fact that you asked me to check, so you have not been trying to be deceptive, but I have explained my concerns and must now ask you to please consider this a warning - if you keep on citing it, I will block your account from editing. Thank you Girth Summit  (blether)  15:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

but I am not understanding. what is the issue? If I post anything without proper source it will not be right. I only edit the things which I know. or which I write. all the edits which I do have more deep information in the citation. if you check it. or it confirms the information. if you want to block my account fine block it. but It is very wrong that you just discouraging the my edits just because you think I am using it for my profit. your opinion is deciding what should be posted or not. what should be linked through wiki. if you want wiki to be one person control then go to encyclopaedia. Pushkaraj1405 (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's confusing having this situation in two places. You don't have to take my word for it - I've already given you a link to WP:RSN. If you want more opinions on your website, ask there. Until you do that, stop adding it. Girth Summit  (blether)  23:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
  You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Girth Summit  (blether) 23:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even edited anything after the warning! why am I even blocked at first place? Pushkaraj1405 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , as far as I can see, all of your edits so far were to add content cited to your own website. I explained to you several times why that was a problem, and I gave you links to the page where you could get other opinions on the matter, but you reiterated that you still thought it was OK to cite it, and then you literally asked me to block you, and indicated that you would use other accounts to keep adding it. I concluded that you were only here to promote your own website, and thus not here for the right reasons: hence the block. I'll add that, if you or anyone else does start spamming links to it under different account, it will be added to the mediawiki blacklist, causing attempts to cite it to be automatically filtered out. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please revert back all edits that has beeen done by me. If you can’t give credit to me you can keep the edits. Too.
 * I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here. All your additions have already been reverted, so if that's what you're asking me to do, don't worry, it's all good. If you're asking me to reinstate them however, that will be a 'no', for the reasons I've already outlined. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  19:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Pushkaraj1405, you cannot "edit the things which [you] know". We call that Original research, and it is prohibited. You cannot edit the things you write. We call that Conflict of interest. You can only add things cited to Reliable sources, as defined by our policies and guidelines. That generally means books and newspapers which have a reasonable reputation for reliability. Your website clearly does not meet our standards for sourcing. If you, or anyone else, continue to add links to your website then we can and will impose a software-block. It will then be impossible for anyone to save any edit containing that web address. Alsee (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

my website has reputation if you talk about the Maharashtra level. I believe you think you know better than everyone than it is not true. I can understand the spam issue. but don't threaten me for anything. you gave me warning I stopped editing still you blocked me for no reason at all. Pushkaraj1405 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) My website ranks in competitive keywords like breaking marathi news. Please don’t can it as unreliable source. And some of your admin has mentioned my website as mirrored content which is not true. Please tell him to take down that statement.