Sandhya001

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Sandhya001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #22025 was submitted on Jul 11, 2018 00:53:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your addition to Business analysis has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Business analysis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I noticed that you recently removed content from Business analysis without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Help me!

This is unbelievable that all the changes I have made on Business Analysis and Business Transformation were removed. I have used proper industry standard definition/terminologies (for example, current state, business case, vision document etc.,) in business analysis/change management, and also provided the sources that have been deliberately reverted by Ms Jessica Pierce using colloquial language. The reference that she has mentioned was already mentioned in the book. I provided the collective reference mentioned in the book and she removed that as well. This is some personal vedanta.

Please help me with...

Sandhya001 (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

In no way do I have any personal vendetta against you. I feel I explained the reversion well in the edit summary (it's probably the longest one I ever wrote) but I will be glad to explain further. Essentially one small section was copyrighted and the rest was poorly written, thick with unnecessary capital letters and sentence that made no sense. Your changes to the lede resulted in crazy formatting and duplicate text. This, combined with the vast amount of text you removed, which largely did make sense, led me to believe this was a nonconstructive change that should be undone. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That is your opinion Ms Jessica and I do NOT agree. Additionally, I stand firm - what I had removed was irrelevant. With 18+ years experience in this profession, I can tell you that you are not from this field, and you are using your general management knowledge to edit my content. As an author and research scholar, I knew exactly what I was writing. I believe there are wikipedia editor who edit grammar and sentence structure on a regular basis. Based on that assumption, I have written the content in a hurry. Content was correct and grammar may be questionable. But, you have removed book reference, other reference. Now the article is incomplete and irrelevant. If this is not a personal vedanta?

First the overzealous editors ask for reference. when it was provided by family, they accuse for socket puppet and delete my page and account. Well, Google is better in this case who can verify and acknowledge the details. Let me tell you, wikipedia has lost it with such a poor editors on board, who have either no knowledge or respect for people who have, and made this site poor.

Business Analysis page was very informative few years ago, and now it is extremely poor in terms of content, consistency, and completeness.

I am sorry you feel personally attacked. I assure you that is not the case. Here is some more information on why I removed your changes.

• Formatting and punctuation issues. This is what brought the article to my attention in the first place; I was patrolling for errors. The article started off - its very first words - with duplicate text: "Business analysis Business Analysis". In just the introductory section and first paragraph, there were:
  • erratic whole-paragraph bold text
  • erratic whole-paragraph italic text
  • stray quote marks in several spots, making it unclear what, if anything, is being quoted

Further down the article, there are a ton of seemingly random capital letters in headers and the text, particularly the phrase "business analyst," which doesn't ever need caps (unless someone's actual title, I guess). There are unnecessary redlinks; "Business Needs" is redlinked, while Wikipedia does have pages titled Business needs and Business requirements. There are links in headers.

You are correct, of course, that Wikipedia works on a collaborative model, and other editors can step in to correct minor issues. However, the onus is on the contributing editor to make their content readable and basically in line with the Manual of Style. The number of errors in your additions was asking far too much of other people to fix.

• Content removal issues. You removed a huge amount of content, much of which was sourced, from the existing article without starting a discussion on the Talk page or even mentioning it in your edit summaries.

• Copyright issues. The paragraph beginning "in addition to the above-mentioned factors, to analyze the current-state" appears verbatim here, and I don't actually feel like digging into whether which text appeared first, because I've just now noticed that you used this as a citation for that paragraph, which appears to be a book you yourself wrote, which violates Wikipedia's self-cite rules.

There was another, clearer copyright violation elsewhere in your additions, but I've already spent too much time on this and I believe I've made my point. If I need to, I can dig it up.

If you regain your editing privileges, I would be more than happy to work with you, to see your additions reintegrated into the article in a way that complies with Wikipedia's policies and style. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

// Thank you for your offer.

Although I made few small donations in the past, I really do not wish to return to Wikipedia due to their biased editors and the treatment meted out to me. I chose to reply to you as your comments were derogatory in the first time, not now.

It is my personal opinion, if the editor doesn't have expertise, they must stick to editing english (only), otherwise, the article will be destroyed. This is what happened. Without knowing the background or the context, you have reverted them. There may be cases, information may appear 'repeated' (due to pre-defined sequence that could be standard), you could have communicated before doing it, just like how you are doing it now. The edits done by me were deliberate considering the content that was in-line with Business Analysis Book by British Computer Society, BABOK v 3.0 book by IIBA, requirement Engineering, IEEE standards and more.

Question - Why an author can't quote his/her book if it is well researched with proper citation, and accepted by well-known research publishers, such as ACM digital library should be valid. If NOT, then either the wikipedia policy is wrong or editors have issues.

And, the same is true when it comes Indian history pages. As a history freak, I can tell you how poor quality of information is being displayed about Indian history. Since editors decide what is right, not the historians or history scholar etc, this is bound to happen. In this case, bias is so obvious as wikipedia reject Indian authors who make changes/updates Indian history through factual details.

Good Luck to you.

I rest my case here. Sandhya //