User talk:Prabakaran1993

March 2017

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one or more of your recent contributions to Nationstar Mortgage because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Nationstar Mortgage. 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. bonadea contributions talk 17:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Prabakaran1993. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Nationstar Mortgage, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 17:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your edit to Oshwah's user page "my job depends on this", you are being paid to edit Wikipedia. You MUST read the paid contribution disclosure page as well as the COI page mentioned above. You must make the declarations mentioned on that page. You also need to read WP:CONSENSUS and use the article talk page to discuss your edits and get consensus before reverting. If you continue as you are, you will end up blocked. Ravensfire (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Your recent editing history at Nationstar Mortgage 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.
PLEASE READ THIS - YOU WILL BE BLOCKED IF YOU CONTINUE. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:Prabakaran1993 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: ). Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

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 why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here so you can impress potential employers by how you can insert advertising material into articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Prabakaran1993 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I really apologize for what I have done, I'm not a pro editor, I'm learner, could you unblock me. I don't do that mistake again. I understood quality is what wiki. I'm honored and feel blessed for pin pointing my mistakes.

Decline reason:

You are believed to be violating WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and particularly, WP:PAID. You have not addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I have restored the content you blanked from this page. While you are welcome to blank everything other than a declined unblock for a currently-active block, you can not then claim you don't understand the reason for your block. By undoing your blanking, I'm giving you a chance to read up on the comments people left you, indicating what you did wrong. --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]