User talk:SHRIPADVAIDYA

Please add new heading as "WATER CREDIT" in water information of wikipedia.

WATER CREDIT
please add information about "water credit"

Water Credit
Water Credit idea of shripad vaidya is included in Limca Book of Records 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen (SHRIPADVAIDYA) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this :
 * 1) It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
 * 2) Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Water conservation‎. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk 07:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Water use, you may be blocked from editing.  Velella  Velella Talk 07:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as seen in Water Use It Wisely‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Velella  Velella Talk 07:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Then try our tutorial for starters, but keep the warnings given to you in mind.

Lectonar (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

In response to your feedback
See above.

Lectonar (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Blocked for 1 week
As a result of Sockpuppet investigations/SHRIPADVAIDYA, I have blocked your account for 1 week for disruptively using multiple accounts. If you continue to use multiple accounts to abuse the revert function or evade scrutiny, you will be blocked indefinitely. You may appeal this block using the procedure set down in the guide to appealing a block. AGK [•] 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
I'm sorry the notes on the article made you sad. There's a couple of reasons why we prefer articles to reference reliable secondary sources. Firstly, primary sources or sources affiliated to the subject are more likely to contain bias and less likely to contain a balanced point of view which Wikipedia seeks to maintain. Secondly, the existence of secondary sources about the subject helps to demonstrate that the topic is noteworthy. If nobody who isn't affiliated with the subject has written about that subject, then chances are that nobody not affiliated with that subject would want to read about it either, so the article isn't noteworthy enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia. In order to add some references to the article, why not try running a Google search for it and see what comes up? Or read more on the links given in the notices on the article.

Don't be discouraged. These notices are given to help improve articles, not to shut them down. Keep trying and maybe you will produce an excellent article.

(Click Here to Reply)

TOW talk  17:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

October 2012
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of Chitpavans. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Alexf(talk) 16:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have given the references so please do not call it as unsourced but the only thing is that the reference which I have mentioned should be more precise and I should have given more references. I understood it and will try to give more precise reference. I am learning so please correct me and give me a chance to learn writing more. My intention were always to give a true fact. Thanks.
 * Not exactly. You keep adding a reference to yourself and disregarding the clear note in that page that only people with articles are accepted in lists of BLP. As per references, please make sure you understand what reliable references are acceptable. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~) . -- Alexf(talk) 19:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please inform me the procedure of request edit in detail. I hope it is the correct way because the direct procedure of editing is very complicated and my intention is only to submit true facts.Also inform that there are many living persons having pages on wikipedia then How conflict of Interest policy is followed by them? Please clarify.
 * For help on editing:Editing Wikipedia. Here's a good guide to your first article. If you prefer to submit an article for approval and help, see Articles for creation. Here's the rules on handling conflicts of interest. All those people with articles about them, did not write them themselves. If you are truly notable, then somebody will write it eventually. Remember that Wikipedia is not Facebook or social media. Here's the most important cardinal rule. And again: please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~) . -- Alexf(talk) 11:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SHRIPAD VAIDYA


A tag has been placed on SHRIPAD VAIDYA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  GILO  A& E&uArr;  16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

COI/self promotion
Your recent edit to Coal seam fire has been undone. We don't use Wikipedia to promote our own ideas or works. Please read WP:Conflict of interest. Vsmith (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)