User talk:Wiki-expert-edit

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Wiki-expert-edit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Public records. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Blehfu (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Naveen Jain appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies.

While we appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information.

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you.

Each day when you've edited Wikipedia beginning 16 Dec 08, you've removed sourced information from Naveen Jain, replacing it with unsourced information. You've yet to even mention that you have been removing this information, much less why. These edits appear to be an attempt to try to link Arun Sarin with charges made against Naveen Jain and his brother, in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

Over a year later, and you're still changing sourced information to your personal liking without explanation, and you're still edit-warring over it. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you revert one more time at Naveen Jain you will be in violation of our WP:Three-revert rule and you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the changes. The changes I made are completely accurate. I simply removed personal bias that existed before. There is no reason to add unfounded allegations to reference material.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Naveen Jain. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed, you must have some personal agenda to continuously add unfounded allegations and personal bias in to the reference material. Is this a power trip or something?

Previous WP:COI editing, some from an IP address registered to Naveen Jain, is explained at Talk:Naveen Jain and some noticeboard postings that are linked from there. The more recent problems due to User:Wiki-expert-edit are explained higher up on this talk page.

Article subjects usually like it when they look good on Wikipedia, but some subjects can be relentless in trying to modify their own article in their favor. Documentation of the very vigorous COI editing in the past is at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Naveen Jain. A number of individual IPs have been blocked at various times for Conflict of Interest editing; see for instance this 3RR case. Due to persistence of inappropriate edits by IPs, the article is now protected against anonymous editing. We are always receptive to well-sourced arguments which show that our articles contain errors. Vague allusions to 'personal bias' are not a good enough reason to give you immunity from the WP:3RR policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the concept and what may have been happening. Would you consider my edits and suggest what changes may be necessary to make them fit for the reference article. I personally believe that unfounded allegations have no place in the reference material like wikipedia.

All allegations currently in the article should have sources. Can you indicate which ones do not? EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Following has no reference, "In another lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain broke Short Swing law section 16 (b) by buying and selling shares of InfoSpace within 6 months. The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Jain with the Federal appeal court that asked the appeal court to overturn the lower court ruling, pointing out that judge had made a mistake in her understanding of the law. Plaintiff's lawyer settled the lawsuit while the case was still on appeal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 February 2010

The problem isn't that there's no reference, is it? --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The real problem is that information is inaccurate and someone took liberty to put spin without any facts. I think we should remove it. The fact according to the court filing was that Jain transferred shares to the children trust which was taken by the plaintiff to mean selling the shares but SEC disagreed with that analysis and asked for the case to be dismissed. Would you be okay if I removed this misleading information or would you prefer for me to correct it.

Thanks for the reply. Can you provide some sources? I'm trying to understand all that happened in this short-swing situation. It's very complicated and went on for many years. The info you're objecting to appears to be from the earlier case(s) and reports. I'm having a hard time making sense of all that happened since and how to summarize it all. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the court filings that were filed by both parties and the letter that SEC wrote for the case to be dismissed. These are public documents available on PACER for a fee. The facts were that Jain transferred shares to the children's trust and plaintiff used this to try to pursue the lower court judge that these transferred were purchase/sell while admitting that no money exchanged hands. Judge misunderstood the 16(b) law but was later corrected by SEC with the letter to the appeal court requesting for the case to be dismissed because no wrong was committed. The case was settled and dismissed.

This looks like what you have done previously: Disputed sourced information, failed to provide sources for your viewpoint, and edit-warred over it.

If you are not going to provide sources, and the situation isn't otherwise clarified, I'll restore the information. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The source of the information is PACER but I don't know how to refer to it from here. In any case, I will leave the sentence but correct the information even based on the reference you provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Naveen Jain. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing to edit war and to remove sourced info. Please stop. If you do not, your next block may be longer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The information does not have to be whitewashed clarified. It is a simple sentence completely supported by the source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, The information is inaccurate in several aspect. There was no shareholder lawsuit. It was a derivative action. Also, 105 Million settlement is misleading because a portion of the money was paid back to Jains to settle their counter claims. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Where's your source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the press release from the company. http://info360.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=165861. The number quoted here is 83 MM (including money received from the insurance companies). In addition, there is no reference to it being shareholder lawsuit. Further, there were many other people who also paid towards the settlement whereas the current reference talks about Jain's lawyers settling for 105MM. Please advice how to proceed. I think it's better to leave the numbers out unless someone can dig them from actual wire transfers. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Press releases are not reliable sources. I've tweaked the wording and added another source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The same information was also filed by infospace in its SEC filings. Would you consider SEC filing on SEC web site as a reliable source. Here it is http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/dex991.htm. here is 8K filing by infospace that includes the smae information http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/0001193125-04-219392.txt. Can I make the change now to remove the incorrect information Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we don't use legal documents as sources per WP:PRIMARY. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, it's not a legal document but a public SEC filing. This is the most accurate set of information rather than a personal opinion from a blog or reporter. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's still a primary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Any more removal of sourced info and I will report you to the administrators. Make your case on the talk page and see if other editors accept it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NEilN, This is your last warning. Any more removal of sourced info and I will report you to the administrators. Make your case on the talk page and see if other editors accept it. --Wiki-Edit-Expert

I think it's very clear from the reference that there was no settlement for 105 million. Also the dispute was with several directors and officers but information here somehow makes it to be Jain only problem and settled by him. The real dispute also involved insurance companies that paid for a large part of the settlement. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Every article covering the Supreme Court refusal to hear his appeal in his lawsuit against his lawyers and stock management company states the settlement amount was $105 million. Early reports stated $65 million, but it appears that amount was incomplete or changed. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are various amounts thrown around based on what's included and what's excluded. 105 Million included money that went back to directors and officers to settle their claim against the company. It also included the money that insurance paid to settle other claims. There were several lawsuits including non-compete that were all settled with money exchanging hands in every way. The information along these lines belong to infospace wiki article and not about a person(dispute involved many parties and Jain was just one of them) Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And again, you provide no sources. Again, you promote Jain's interests over properly sourced material. Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work like this. You've been notified that self-published, primary sources are inappropriate. You've been warned not to remove proper sources and properly sourced material. You've been blocked for edit-warring. Yet you continue. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that I have not provided any sources. Please see the reference provided. Please tell me what part of my edit is not in this reference which is more authentic than anything else here. here is reference again for your easy reference. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/dex991.htm Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, official SEC documents are not self published by Naveen Jain. This is proper secondary source. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"PRESS RELEASE, DATED DECEMBER 22, 2004" - as stated before, not reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"You keep saying that I have not provided any sources." No, I'm saying you do not provide sources that back what you're saying. $105 million has been properly sourced, yet you use an improper source and some unsourced assertions as justification for disputing that figure.

I'm beginning to believe that you simply don't understand the sources you cite, while you ignore sources that disagree with your misunderstanding. You certainly don't understand what a press release is. --Ronz (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I do understand what the press release is. Do you understand what the SEC filings are. Let's try again with the 8K filing http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/0001193125-04-219392.txt

I will reference this for your pleasure in the article.

My suggestion to resolve the dispute is to add the information that you want added to the InfoSpace article. Which is where it belongs. As you can see from the SEC 8K filing. The dispute involved infospace, several of its officers and its insurance companies. This information belong to infospace article and not on this page. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, all the references mention Jain personally. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you read the SEC 8K filing. This is most authentic document on this subject. This just goes on to show that you can't trust biased bloggers or random internet publication for providing you with reliable information. You should trust SEC documents as the most reliable source. In any case, this information belongs to infosapce article anyway. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SEC filings are simply information filed with the SEC. In the cases you point out, the information you're citing is from press releases from Infospace. Do you understand this?

The independent, reliable sources that you have repeatedly removed after being warned not to do so are the only sources that can be used in this situation per WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB. These are not sources from "biased bloggers" nor any "random internet publication." These sources clearly indicate that this information is relevant to Jain specifically and his notability. --Ronz (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary source filed by InfoSpace in 2004 vs. news reports appearing in reliable sources in 2009. No contest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, you must be completely clueless. You think SEC filings are incorrect and SEC never figured it out after they read the news. get a clue! Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, My suggestion to resolve the dispute is to add the information that you want added to the InfoSpace article. Which is where it belongs. As you can see from the SEC 8K filing. The dispute involved infospace, several of its officers and its insurance companies. This information belong to infospace article and not on this page. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated suggestion ignores the policy-based responses.

I ask again: Do you understand what those SEC filings are? --Ronz (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. But the question is do you? SEC 8K filing is made as the urgent filing due with SEC within 24 hours of an important event. The filings are not filed by the person (in this case, Mr. jain). Mr. Jain was long gone from infospace when this filing was made to distribute most important information to the shareholders. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Infospace filed the reports, correct? Jain was a named party in the litigation, correct? A ruling was made against Jain, correct? --Ronz (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not correct. There were half a dozen people as named parties. Infospace was not a party to the dispute but a private person was the named plaintiff. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You've not addressed my questions. Please read my questions again, or ask for elaboration if you don't understand them. --Ronz (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just take a chill pill here. As you know, I have already submitted the underlying language for Editor to look at. We should all stop making changes at this point and just wait for the outcome of the dispute. Is that okay with everyone?

Your version has been rejected by four other editors. You should stop making changes at this point and just listen to everyone else. Is that okay with you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I could also report you as being on the edit war but I am lot more civil. Let's agree to stop making changes since I have provided the most trusted soruce possible for this topic. There can't be any other document more trusted than the document filed under penalty of perjury and possibly reviewed by an army of lawyers. The filing was approved by all parties to the dispute including plaintiff lawyers. See the documents at PACER regarding dismissal of the case by all parties. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Try again. I stopped reverting long before it could be considered edit warring (unlike you who has refused to listen to multiple editors who have no COI in this issue). The source you have provided is not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring report

Sorry that you weren't notified earlier, but there's a report on your editing at WP:ANEW. --Ronz (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated removal of sourced information

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Naveen Jain, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [1] --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel it this way. The information you added is completely inaccurate and I have provided you with the SEC document reference to show you that Jains never paid 105 Million to settle the case. You seem to insist on adding that. What's your motive? Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think these repeated threats to bully people in to your version of facts is not conducive to wiki community. I have provided you with authentic reference and am happy to provide you additional references but you need to stop making the changes. Let's discuss it here without editing the article. Tell me what would you like to see to make yourself comfortable with the facts. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Here in this edit, you removed the dollar amounts of two of the payments that Jain was involved in: $247 million in one case, and $105 million in the other case. Can you explain why you think the article is better with this information removed? I am thinking of blocking you indefinitely from Wikipedia, because your only activity here is to censor this article for the benefit of Jain. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm especially concerned that the information was removed with the edit summary, "adding additional information." --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how many times we have to go through with it. I provided you with the definite source that clearly disputes the 105M payment issue listed here. The SEC document clearly states that the payment made was 85M by insurance companies and several other officers of the company. The current article says that Mr. Jain made a payment of 105M. Does that make sense to you. Here is the reference again for your reading pleasure.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/dex991.htm. I am happy for someone with no bias read this and tell me why it makes sense for us to spread false information. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I really am not trying to be difficult and only doing it for the good of wiki community. We sometimes get caught up in our own biases and refuse to see any other point of view. Let's just be fair and accurate. I will stop the edits if you continue to feel that it's okay to say Mr. Jain paid 105M even thought the SEC document says that the total payment including payments from insurance companies and other officers and directors of the company was 83M. You decide and I will stop making the edits. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your source states how much Infospace received. The other source states the size of the settlement, which may account for the discrepancy (the 105 might include court costs or attorney fees or who knows what else). In any case, you didn't change the number, you're removing sourced information entirely. You've been blocked for this once already. If you continue, your next block will be considerably longer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We don't know what the number is so I simply wanted to remove the unconfirmed information. Also, the payment of 83M or whatever the amount may have been included the payment from infospace insurance companies and other officers of the company. Don't you think it's incorrect to say that Mr. Jain paid 105M to settle the case. As I said, You guys can decide whatever makes you happy. I still think we should be fair and accurate but maybe that's not the case when it comes to information about Mr. Jain because someone has some personal agenda against him. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious to me (and several others here) that yours is a single purpose account intent on whitewashing the article. The current version of the article is well-sourced and matter-of-fact. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

okay. You win. You keep talking about me but you refuse to read the facts clearly laid out and insist on spreading false facts. I would have been happy to contribute more to various articles but my experience with wikipedia is soured with the way you guys treat people who are not part of your small club. Did you even read what I said and reference I provided. Hope you can sleep at peace with yourself. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AFG / WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA

This edit [2] appears to cross the line with making accusations against another user "talk about the content, not the contributor". You may wish to strike your comments about Ronz. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted his comment, and was about to inform him about it, with my reasons (Obvious COI and possible personal attack against Ronz). I guess you beat me to it. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it. I think it's best to let Wiki-expert-edit demonstrate his perspective in the matter. It doesn't look like that perspective is changed in any way since he was blocked. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the personal attack. I have edited my comment to keep it objective. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've removed my response. --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

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. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to have you back. However, if you are going to focus on creating conflicts with others rather than improving articles based upon following our policies and guidelines, then our work together will be short once again. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you. Please review the links below and tell me why the information on Moon Express that he is the founder and executive chairman should not be included. Intelius in not renamed or restructured to inome. Xprize and Singularity university are meaningful to the reader. I understand that you will like to decide what should be int the article but you really need to back off and let others do the job.

Regarding this - you are claiming to be Jain himself? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history at Naveen Jain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wiki-expert-edit reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am actually trying to stop the war. You can easily see the history that RonZ makes whatever changes he wants and NeilN jumps in to threaten the editor as soon as anyone other than RonZ makes the change. I suggested that no one make any changes to the page and everyone should discuss one section at a time on the page to make it better. How is that an edit war.

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Naveen Jain. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ^X 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You're edit-warring again [3] [4]. I suggest focusing your time on discussing the matters on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It might help to disclose your conflict of interest

At least 6 editors have asked you about your conflict of interest with the Jain article. At this point I assume you've reviewed WP:COI and have decided not to disclose your relationship. However, you have edited from an Intelius ip address [5], so you may want to explain that. Your statement that you are Jain and the article is yours [6] is causing a great deal of concern as well, and you may want to elaborate on your earlier response [7]. --Ronz (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, sort of. I would only encourage you to disclose that you have a "close personal connection" a "conflict of interest" or something else, but not anything about your name, job title, etc. Wikipedia is based on an anonymous model and we take privacy seriously.

In any case, before you respond to my post, if you do respond that is, I wanted to encourage you to take a very close look at the criterion I have laid out in the second paragraph about "arguing differently" as follows: "provide high-quality, credible, independent sources that cover Naveen in-depth (not quotes, brief mentions, interviews, etc.) that are focused on something besides InfoSpace and have substantial content that's not already included in the article."

Instead of responding right away, I would suggest taking some time to see if you can find sources that meet those parameters. Whether you provide these kinds of sources with your arguments will determine if your arguments win the day or not. If you have any questions, just let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 21:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if anything I wrote implied that I think it appropriate to even request disclosure of name, job title, etc. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history at Naveen Jain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
YET AGAIN. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Given your bias towards the subject seems to make it impossible for you to edit neutrally, I strongly suggest you let others make edits to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continued edit warring at Naveen Jain. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Swarm ^X 01:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to be very fair but you and RonZ always want voice of reason to be blocked. All editors agreed that the amount of settlement was inaccurate and should be removed. We all agreed that the lawsuit was settled and dismissed. I am not sure NeilN is RonZ or two of work in the same company that's being paid to molest "Naveen Jain" page. You are way too quick to block because you don't like reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 01:43, 23 March 2015‎

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wiki-expert-edit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am making good faith effort to improve the page and didn't engage in any edit warring. I explained my reason on the talk page and built consensus for the changeWiki Expert Edit (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given that you've been edit warring on that article now for over five years, with four blocks to prove it, you're lucky this block isn't indefinite. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Obviously not. If there was consensus, someone else without a COI would have made the edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. I will continue to make good faih efforts and reasoning on the talk page to let other editors decide if it makes sense to make the edits. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, you need to remove the code and nowiki beginning and end tags to have your unblock request show up properly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please end all the personal accusations against other editors

You've been warned enough (here. I hope you'll decide to stop making such accusations when you return. [8] --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned you on Jimbo Wales talk-page in context of problematic COI/paid-advocacy. Feel free to respond there once your current block expires; or, if you wish, post a response here and request anyone to copy it there. Abecedare (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)