User talk:Msmt540786

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) caste-related topics in South Asia.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. This alert is specifically for the Indian military history contentious topic area. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026

Your recent edit to NASM-MR misrepresented what the cited source(s) actually say. Material on Wikipedia must be verifiable and must accurately reflect the sources it cites (see WP:V and WP:INTEGRITY). Please make sure any text you add is directly and fully supported by the source you give for it. Misrepresenting sources is a serious problem, and in contentious topic areas it can lead to sanctions if it continues. (-- via Sentinel) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the NASM-MR manufacturing description to include both selected DcPP entities (1. ICOMM Tele Limited and 2. SOLAR) as prioritized by DRDO Msmt540786 (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at NASM-MR, you may be blocked from editing.

Please note that you are editing in a contentious topic space and you've been warned previously about the need for proper sourcing. If you continue to insert unsourced promotional claims into Wikipedia, you may be blocked from further editing without additional warning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am disclosing that I have a Conflict of Interest (COI) as an engineer who has worked on the NASM-SR project since its inception. I am currently with ICOMM Tele Limited. I am requesting an update to the manufacturer details to accurately reflect the project's true industrial structure under the DRDO Development-cum-Production Partner (DcPP) framework.

Currently, the article or infobox may underrepresent the tiered partnership. I propose adding clear clarification that:

**ICOMM Tele Limited** serves as the **Level 1 Partner**.
**Adani Defence & Aerospace** serves as the **Level 2 Partner** under the DcPP framework.

As an engineer, I know this to be the precise internal and operational truth of the manufacturing workflow.

Since Wikipedia requires third-party verifiability, I ask independent editors to help verify this tiered relationship through official DRDO DcPP project layouts, Ministry of Defence acquisition listings, or ICOMM/Adani corporate governance reports. If an independent editor can locate or has access to the official public DcPP tender/bidding awards verifying these specific Tier-1/Tier-2 positions, please assist in updating the infobox and "Development" section accordingly.

Thank you for maintaining the technical accuracy of this vital defense article.

ICOMM Tele Limited is also a Level 2 Partner of NASM-MR. SOLAR Defence is the Level 1 Partner. Msmt540786 (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me see if I understand -- you have been editing in a contentious topic area with an undisclosed conflict of interest as a paid employee of the subject of your edits, and you admittedly don't have a reliable third party independent source for the content you've been disruptively seeking to introduce? And you're continuing to edit the article content in violation of that COI? Enough. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For an unblock to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- though you did eventually disclose your COI and paid editing status, it was only after having been warned multiple times; further, you continued to edit the subject of your COI (for which you are a paid editor) rather than properly abiding by our requirements. Simply disclosing the COI is insufficient -- particularly in a contentious topic space like this, and particularly for an account like yours which is promotional-only in nature. And you're doing so in a contentious topic, for which you're aware that we expect a higher degree of conduct. As such, I've indefinitely blocked you from editing to prevent further disruption to the subjects of your COI. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being an employee worked under NASM-SR (DRDO), I am giving you the accurate information. How you are claiming me as a paid editor? I am the one who is developing and testing the NASM-SR launch application. I am the senior engineer who is working with the project since very first day. I have corrected the mistake happened in wikipedia with reliable information. How can you block me claiming a paid editor if i correct the false information? What is the source you had stating only Adani is the manufacturer of NASM-SR project? Msmt540786 (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2026 (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).

Msmt540786 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I am not a paid user. I am working under project NASM-SR as a DcPP Partner. I have corrected the false information provided in the wikipedia with accurate information as a known person. But not as a paid user. I am working for nation but not for wikipedia as a paid user.Msmt540786 (talk) 10:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Not going to get unblocked while you're actively sockpuppeting, to continue to disrupt the same article you were just blocked for UPE and COI on. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:28, 21 June 2026 (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.

}} Msmt540786 (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators: If this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue. Admins lifting or loosening such blocks without appropriate authorization may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

More generally, an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. It's quite literally right there in our policy. What you are failing to understand is that you should not be editing this article. You have a financial conflict of interest in the subject, you are editing promotionally on behalf of that subject, and you did so without disclosing that relationship, and edit-warred disruptively to make those edits. You did not properly disclose the COI even once it became public, and then you continued to make promotional COI edits on the topic after disclosure, rather than appropriately using the talk page and allowing other editors to determine their validity. Further, this subject falls under the restrictions of the Indian Military History subtopic of the South Asia contentious topic, which is restricted from editing for non-extended confirmed editors like yourself. You were not authorized to be editing this subject matter in the first place, regardless of whether you had a COI or not, because you were not an extended confirmed editor. So, seeing as you've made little to no attempt to comply with our policies after multiple attempts to correct your behavior, why should we place our content at further risk by unblocking you? What assurances can you give that you will not make any further edits to any topics relating to your employer, or to anything covered under the South Asia contentious topic while non-extended confirmed? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as you're now disruptively using sockpuppets -- Siva190512 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I'm going to procedurally decline your unblock request and disable your talk page access, as you are clearly not here to comply with our policies. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]