User talk:Shivacentral309

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]

Hi Mahamudracollective! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

Based on the image you uploaded in Wikimedia Commons, it appears you have a connection to Rahat Mahajan. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. CNMall41 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I have a close connection to Rahat Mahajan and appreciate the reminder about Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. I am reviewing WP:COI and WP:PAID as suggested.
My goal is to ensure the article remains neutral and properly sourced. If there are any statements that seem promotional or lacking references, I’m open to suggestions or revisions. I understand I should propose changes on the Talk page rather than make them directly, and I welcome feedback from other editors to maintain compliance with Wikipedia’s policies.
Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do at this stage. Thank you. Mahamudracollective (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting your response here. Did not copy over as it is essentially what you are saying above. Please keep the discussion on the same thread here so we don't have to go back and forth on numerous pages. I appreciate the disclosure. You will need to declare the COI on your userpage. As far as the images, there are many more than the one image which you uploaded and claimed the copyright to. You will need to send permission to Wikimedia Commons for them as I still have doubts as far as the type of connection you have. Did you take the pictures or were they supplied to you by the subject of the draft?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CNMall41,
Thank you very much for your response. My apologies for previously posting across multiple threads — I am still learning how to navigate Wikipedia properly and will continue all communication on this page from now on.
I have disclosed my COI on my userpage: User:Mahamudracollective.
Regarding the images: Mahamudra Collective is the company that produced Rahat Mahajan's recent feature film. We have the rights to all the images, which were either taken by our production team or provided to us directly by the festivals where Rahat's films were screened. As mentioned previously, some of these images were also uploaded to IMDb by us. To avoid any confusion or conflict with Wiki Commons licensing, we have initiated the process of removing our uploads from IMDb.
Thank you again for guiding me through this process. Please let me know if there is anything else I should address.
--Mahamudracollective (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You work for a production company. You are not being paid directly but part of your work includes what you are doing here on Wikipedia. You will need to amend your disclosure to reflect that. You would fall under WP:PAID regardless of your assertion that it is just a personal connection. It is not, it is professional. As far as "we own the rights," this is not "you" so "you" are not able to release a statement regarding copyright. The photographer will need to or the production company will need to send permission to Wikimedia Commons. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CNMall41,
Thank you for this clarification. You are right — while I am not personally being paid for editing, the work I am doing is part of my professional responsibilities at Mahamudra Collective, the production company behind Rahat Mahajan's recent film. I apologize for not realizing earlier that this falls under WP:PAID, and I will immediately update my user page to properly reflect this status, including both COI and paid contribution disclosure.
Regarding the images, I understand now that the permission needs to come directly from the copyright holder, which in this case is the production company or the photographers involved. I will arrange for the necessary permissions to be sent to Wikimedia Commons.
Thank you again for your guidance and patience. I will make sure to follow all relevant policies carefully.
--Mahamudracollective (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Rahat Mahajan has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rahat Mahajan. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rahat Mahajan (March 31)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Flat Out was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please read WP:NPOV
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Flat Out (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Mahamudracollective (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rewritten following WP:NPOV and WP:COI guidance. Promotional language has been removed, a COI disclosure is on my user page and the draft's talk page, and all claims are supported by reliable, independent sources. Thank you for your review.

April 2025

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Draft:Rahat Mahajan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Read the edit summaries. You are now edit warring. Do NOT remove the comments for other AfC reviewers. CNMall41 (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you so much for this note. I was just trying to clean up the page as it was a resubmission. Since I'm new to this I did not understand that I was initiating an editing war or in any way intending to do so. Sincere apologies for the same. I will not be touching this new draft which is much more shorter and neutral than the previous one, till it's been reviewed and a response is received. Mahamudracollective (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Follow-up ==
Hello CNMall41,
Thank you again for your previous note. Since I haven’t heard back, I wanted to check if there is anything else I should do. I have refrained from making further edits to avoid any potential conflict, but I’m available if there are changes or clarifications needed. Please let me know how I can move forward in the best way possible.
Thank you for your time and guidance.
--Mahamudracollective (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Mahamudracollective (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Re-review of Draft:Rahat Mahajan

[edit]

Hello Flat Out,

Thank you again for your review and comments on my draft, Draft:Rahat Mahajan. I have carefully revised the submission to address the concerns you raised on 31 March. Specifically:

  • Promotional or subjective language has been removed.
  • The tone has been revised for neutrality in accordance with WP:NPOV.
  • The structure follows encyclopedic standards.
  • All claims are now supported by citations from independent, reliable sources.

I have also disclosed my WP:COI and WP:PAID status on my user page in good faith, as suggested during earlier discussions.

The draft has since been resubmitted and is currently pending review. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly revisit the updated version and let me know if there are any remaining changes I can make to meet the article standards.

Thank you again for your time, guidance, and contributions to Wikipedia. --Mahamudracollective (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rahat Mahajan (April 24)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
non notable films plus non notable awards = failure to pass WP:GNG
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Mahamudracollective! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rahat Mahajan (April 24)

[edit]
Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by CNMall41 was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: No changes made since last submission.
CNMall41 (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up on Draft:Rahat Mahajan
Hello CNMall41,
Thank you again for your earlier feedback on Draft:Rahat Mahajan and your permission to submit again. I have now:
  • Shortened the draft significantly to focus only on verifiable biographical details and the subject’s most notable work
  • Removed promotional or subjective language in line with WP:NPOV
  • Ensured that all content is backed by independent, reliable sources with properly formatted
  • Fully disclosed my COI and paid editing status on my user page
  • Addressed your comments on copyright by initiating proper permissions for the image files on Commons
If you have time, I would greatly appreciate another review or any additional guidance you may have.
Thank you again for your time and support.
— Mahamudracollective (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I will leave it for other reviewers at AfC. I still see a press release in the references as well. See WP:RS. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CNMall41,
Per your latest feedback, I have replaced the remaining press-release reference with a reliable, independent source (*Screen Daily*, 3 February 2022) that confirms the Tiger-Competition premiere at Rotterdam. All citations in the draft are now third-party or otherwise appropriate for verification.
If any further adjustments are needed, please let me know.
Thank you again for your guidance and time.
— Mahamudracollective (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @CNMall41,
I'm having difficulty convincing other reviewers that you had given me permission to resubmit my Draft:Rahat Mahajan. Also, I'm not able to find your comment anymore where you gave me permission to resubmit after I clarified with you that I had resubmitted by mistake, thinking that I would be able to make changes to the draft after I click on the Resubmit button (my misunderstanding due to being new to wikipedia). I have now worked on a new draft but for other reviewers to review it, will it possible for you directly reverse your rejection so that others see it is valid? I would be really grateful for this as I've worked really hard on etc new draft and to meet all the guidelines and suggestions by you and the other reviewers.
Sincerely,
19:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Shivacentral309 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your account has been blocked from editing because your username gives the impression that the account represents a group, team, club, organization, company, product, department, or website. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have chosen a new username that complies with Wikipedia's username policy.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable, regardless of the username that you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose who is paying you to edit here. You may also read our FAQ for article subjects.

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change to this account.
  • To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
  • If you prefer to change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page (this page): {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Important items to note:

  • The new username that you choose must represent you as an individual person, and it must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.
    • You are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it also identifies you individually. Examples include: "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".
  • The new username you choose cannot already be taken and used by another account. You can search here to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns, "There is no global account for [username]", that means it is available.

Appeals: If your username does not represent a group, organization, department, website, or other entity described above, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page (this page): {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 

Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Shivacentral309 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Request reason:

Hello DoubleGrazing, thank you for the notice. I now realise that my current username Mahamudracollective violates the organisational-username rule at WP:U. Please rename this account to Shivacentral309, which identifies me as an individual and does not promote any company or product. I will continue to comply with all COI/PAID-editing disclosure requirements. Thank you for considering this request. Mahamudracollective (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You addressed the blocking admin, but unblock requests are to ask for a third party to review the block, so I have. I renamed you and will remove the block. I will note that your disclosures on your user page are contradictory; you say you're personally associated with Mr. Mahajan and not paid, then say you're editing in your professional capacity and are paid. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on COI/PAID Disclosure

[edit]

Hello 331dot,

Thank you for promptly processing my username change request and unblocking my account.

I would like to clarify the apparent contradiction regarding my COI/PAID disclosures. To confirm clearly:

  • I am editing in my professional capacity as part of my responsibilities at Mahamudra Collective, the production company involved with Rahat Mahajan’s projects.
  • However, I am not directly paid specifically for my edits on Wikipedia; editing is part of my general professional role and responsibilities at the company.

I initially stated this as "not paid" because I misunderstood Wikipedia’s specific definition under WP:PAID, thinking it meant direct financial compensation specifically for Wikipedia edits. Now I understand that editing within a professional capacity—whether directly compensated or not—still falls under the broader definition of "paid editing."

Accordingly, I have updated my user page disclosure clearly to reflect this. I hope this clarifies the confusion adequately.

Thank you again for your assistance and patience.

— Shivacentral309 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not updated your user page accordingly. You need to replace the current generic COI disclosure template with the more specific {{paid}} one.
You see, this is the problem with posting AI-generated comments like the one above. AI can tell you to say what it thinks we want to hear, but it cannot help you actually understand what you must then do to follow through with what you've said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing,
Thank you for your feedback, and I sincerely apologize for the confusion. I’m new to Wikipedia and still learning how to edit - but working sincerely to adhere to the guidelines as well as learn through the feedback.
I did update my user page before sending my previous message, but I wasn’t aware that the {{paid}} template was specifically required. I’ve now added it as instructed.
Regarding your note on AI: I did use an AI tool to help structure some of my earlier messages, as I’ve been doing my best to navigate Wikipedia’s policies and complex terminology and not make any mistakes (as I've made several already). I understand the need to personally review all policies and follow all guidelines, and I’ll be more careful going forward.
Thanks again,
Shivacentral309 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shivacentral309 You can certainly be as specific as you want; please know that "paid editing" does not require specific payment for editing(otherwise every paid editor would deny being specifically paid to edit). Editing as part of one's general job duties, or having any other form of paid relationship with a topic, counts.
My advice is to not use AI. Talk page posts are not expected to be grammatically and stylistically perfect. Just talk to us. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot,
Thank you so much for the clarification regarding "paid editing" disclosure.
I also wanted to make a make request if I could please submit the Draft:Rahat Mahajan once again. It was rejected by @CNMall41 because I resubmitted it prematurely (as I thought after clicking Resubmit is when I'll be able to edit). After I clarified that, he gave me permission to resubmit but the button never showed up on the draft again. I have worked really hard on this new draft with all the feedback received by the reviewers, reducing the size of this it quite drastically and have made it lot more neutral in tone and done my best to meet the neutrality guidelines, and also given a proper citation for every line. I was suggested by @CF-501 Falcon to use this code subst:Submit to submit, but for some reason it gets removed every time I write it. Could you please help or give guidance regarding what I should do?
Warm Regards,
18:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Shivacentral309 (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where CNMall said they would reverse their rejection; DoubleGrazing is reversing your resubmission because rejected drafts normally may not be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @331dot,
I can confirm with absolute certainty that @CNMall41 gave me permission to resubmit. For some reason I am not able to find his response and wondering if the thread was archived by him. Even if you see above on the talk page here there is a follow up I did with him titled Your submission at Articles for creation: Rahat Mahajan (April 24) and mentioned that it was after his permission that I have now made a new draft. He had then mentioned that 'At this point, I will leave it for other reviewers at AfC'.
I will continue to look for the comment where he had given me permission after I had immediately explained the error of resubmission, but I hope @CNMall41 responds here directly to confirm. Shivacentral309 (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disbelieve you, just saying I can't see it. I would suggest that you ask them to directly reverse their rejection so that others see it is valid. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @331dot,
Thank you for trusting me regarding this. I have written to @CNMall41, and hoping he responds. Really hoping I can submit the draft again for review.
Warm Regards,
20:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Shivacentral309 (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is working; it was being removed just as 331dot said. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @CF-501 Falcon,
Thanks for confirming that the code for submission works and really appreciate your support.
19:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Shivacentral309 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall the discussion where I said it could be resubmitted. Regardless, anything can be resubmitted if there are substantial changes showing it is notable. However, you are bludgeoning the process with your resubmissions without improvements. As such, I don't see how this is going to lead to the draft being accepted. In fact, it is likely going to wind up with you being blocked. Also, do not remove the templates from the draft, especially the COI/PAID template, as these are needed by reviewers. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @CNMall41, I do remember I was given permission and cannot find the comment at the moment because I think it was on your talk page and you have archived it. Or maybe I'm mistaking it with the comment @CF-501 Falcon had made regarding resubmission, but for some reason I am certain that you had given permission too else I would have not gone ahead and made the effort to work on this new draft.
And I can sincerely vouch for the fact that I am making significant changes to the draft before resubmission. It was only the one which you rejected the last time which I had resubmitted by mistake as I had thought that I would be only allowed to re-edit after I click on resubmit and it was an immature mistake due to being new to this. The same was the case for the edit warring that too was with you, which again was due to the fact that I am new to this and I thought that I have to delete the entire wiki text and start afresh if rejected. I am really trying hard to adhere to the wikipedia and reviewers standards, to not make mistakes and also meet all compliance guidelines sincerely and respectfully, but I do feel a bit like a student who is being bullied and the responses are a bit harsh rather than being supportive.
The new draft is one/forth the size the size of the original draft and with all the changes and suggestions that were requested.
I wanted to sincerely apologize for the mistakes that I've made in the process of learning through this draft as it was the first draft I've ever written with significant amount of research on the subject.
I would be sincerely grateful for this new draft to be given the opportunity of being reviewed by another reviewer as you have already formed a perception of me being 'insincere' even though I've done my very best to adhere to every comment, guideline and been completely transparent and forthcoming about learning wikipedia and how to publish.
If you think this request is reason enough to block me, then you can please go ahead and do that.
Thank you,
01:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Shivacentral309 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not say "mistake" please. It was not a mistake you resubmitted without improvement. It was also not a mistake that you removed the COI tag. Please do not ping me again as I am not going to be able to assist you any further. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @CNMall41, this is what I mean. You already perceive me as ‘insincere’. Me sharing with you that it was a mistake to resubmit - as I did it as soon as the draft was rejected without a single change was certainly due to my lack of understanding and I’ve also shared the reason - I thought that I would only be be able to re-edit after I click on Resubmit.
You can see from my record that every-time a suggestion has been made by any reviewer including yourself, I’ve adhered to it and learnt from the suggestions. Same goes for the COI. The moment you mentioned it was something I was doing wrong and claimed it as some sort of edit warring, I immediately adhered to it, apologized, learnt that I was making a mistake due to learning the platform and have never made the same mistake. So mistake or no mistake, their have certainly been missteps from my end due to lack of knowledge and understanding of how Wikipedia works, and I’ve accepted that fact and made changes and adjustments with humility and I’m doing my level best to learn in the process. I know that I can’t continue to justify if you don’t trust me and I respect the volunteer effort that goes into AfC. I also want to mention, in good faith, that some of the exchanges have felt discouraging. Like I said previously, I am new to Wikipedia and still learning its processes; many of the mistakes have been unintentional, and I have acted promptly to correct them when pointed out.
If you feel the draft is still not ready and don't wish to be communicated to anymore, could we please:
  • have another AfC reviewer take a fresh look, or
  • move the discussion to a suitable dispute-resolution venue?
I will, of course, abide by whatever the community decides.
Thank you for your time and energy on this.
19:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Shivacentral309 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to any dispute resolution venue you deem appropriate. As stated above, do not ping me as I am no longer going to be able to assist you. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RE "have another AfC reviewer take a fresh look", I've looked through the sources (not that I'm doubting CNMall41's assessment, but since the author insists), and I concur that they are insufficient to establish notability. As it stands, I see no reason to revert the rejection.
@User:Shivacentral309, I get that your boss desperately wants to be on Wikipedia, and you probably have little option but to try to accommodate this, but there is a limit to how much we will entertain such efforts. Be advised, you are fast approaching that limit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @DoubleGrazing,
Thank you so much for the time and energy to review the draft again. If you feel that it fails to establish notability then I accept your opinion and will move on from this document.
And please note that I have no boss so please don't assume things as I'm not being pressured by anyone. I work for the collective independently and that is what I was trying to establish in my previous statements - that this is not paid. Overall I'm just really confused by this experience, and will think twice or learn this platform much better before writing on another subject.
Regards,
07:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Shivacentral309 (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken. I had assumed that this Rahat Mahajan person or some associated party had either instructed, commissioned, or otherwise engaged you to write this draft. I stand corrected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]