Pls go through this Victor Osimhen being regarded as one of the best players in the world it was removed I don't know why. Pls check it out. Thanks
AtishT20, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi AtishT20! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Loksmythe was:
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chiefs of Staff Committee (India) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chiefs of Staff Committee (India), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Please be careful of what you are saying. At least learn to read. I was making an article not editing one!
I'm not talking about that. You have made several edits today that you have not explained in any way, or sourced. There is no way to tell the difference between them and vandalism. Please also remember to sign your posts with four tildes (4x~). Britmax (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm WildComet. I noticed that you recently removed content 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 your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hello, heads up you should make sure to adequately explain changes to articles. I see you have removed references to officeholders being heads of government, sections from leads, etc. Would also be helpful to start discussions in talk pages before removing content, thanks :) —WildComettalk00:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Prime Minister of Canada shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rockcodder (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you may be blocked from editing. You have attempted to change the lead in not only this article numerous times, with each attempt being reverted. You are now trying to do the same time on other articles. You need to ensure there is consensus rather than ramming changes through. —WildComettalk09:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited President of Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Prime Minister of India have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please note that what is there is a precise paraphrase of the source, a highly esteemed scholarly source. If you have concerns, take then to the article's talk page. That is always better than editor warring. Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AtishT20 (talk·contribs) May I suggest that you not play games with me, a longstanding competent editor on Wikipedia, unless you are looking to be penalized. I have written the Featured Article India, Wikipedia's oldest country featured article, now 17 years old. Please don't play silly games by attempting tit-for-tat on my user talk page Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not playing games with you as you yourself have made a disruptive edit. I am frankly not bothered by who you are. Well done to you if you wrote 1 million wikipedia pages, but I couldn't care less. It is not your job to go around parading yourself. There is no need for me to be penalised as I have not done anything wrong. Humble yourself. AtishT20 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is just getting ridiculous. Just cause I don't agree with you, that doesn't mean you can start threatening me. I have just rearranged the wordings of some of the main text and have said that you don't need to be specific about what the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha is. Learn some manners or I'll report you. Start to act like a professional if you consider yourself one. AtishT20 (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi AtishT20! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Lewis Hamilton several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Your edit to Mason Mount has been removed in whole or in part, 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Swapnil1101. I noticed that you recently removed content from Government of Uttar Pradesh 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 your 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. Swapnil1101 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AtishT20. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chiefs of Staff Committee (India), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
And you should also stop calling my edits nonsense. Learn some manners and inform me politely even if my edit was not made correctly AtishT20 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop harassing Fowler on their page, Atish, and also to stop speaking so rudely altogether. Telling others to "learn some manners" is extremely bad manners. If you post more aggravation on Fowler's page, you risk being blocked for harassment. Bishonen | tålk16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Fine I went overboard but that isn't bad manners. You don't need to teach me. I just don't appreciate being treated like nothing. AtishT20 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you'd been disruptive on Fowler's page before, with this, indeed, silly template which simply copies Fowler's handwritten text (including his typo "then") back at him. So your current posts represent repeated terrible behavior on a particular user talkpage. You're on thin ice, and I will block if this continues. BTW I see you have been asked before, above, to indent using colons like other people do. Please see WP:INDENT. Bishonen | tålk20:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Commander-in-chief. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
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.
Hello, I'm Suonii180. I noticed that you recently removed content from Government of the United Kingdom 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 your 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. Suonii180 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chief Justice of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief judge.
Hello, AtishT20. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from President of India. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
April 2023
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Phil Foden, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AtishT20. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Commander in Chief of the Indian Armed Forces, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
@AtishT20: The value judgment ("considered one of the best") is not attributed to anyone, thus it lacks attribution (softly implying that it is "generally" considered too, something not verified in any provided source). Your edit fits a WP:PUFFERY pattern insofar it operates as a vague statement "used without attribution to promote the subject of an article". Per WP:PUFFERY, "instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it". You can also check the talk page (Talk:Jude_Bellingham#Considered one of the best...), where this issue is addressed in depth by users with a better English-language command than me. Whether this pattern repeats in other articles or not, it is unconsequential (multiple wrongs do not make a right). And by the way, personal attacks require to be amusing (to me that is), to be recorded in my user page.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not attacking you or insulting your English language skills I’m saying you should understand where I’m coming from no matter what your English proficiency is. Whether you find it amusing or not doesn’t concern my talk page. Explain why the page regarding Phil Foden has the exact same lede yet remains the same. All players should be given equal treatment AtishT20 (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever floats your boat. I did not find your vandalization of my user page amusing nor fun. Take it as a warning, if you wish. Before anything, I am perfectly understanding where you are coming from. My English-language reading skills are fine, and I do not find your writing to be a particularly convoluted one (although the use of additional punctuation marks can help) neither I find it to boast a complex vocabulary. What you need are not multiple rankings. For starters, what you need is a quality secondary source analyzing the reputation of the subject and expressing exactly that value judgment ("he is considered one of the best..."), without you synthezising a group of websources (WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source"; spoiler alert: that is exactly what you are doing}), drawing an analysis absent in any of those sources (those sources do not express any generalization, the generalization is concocted by you: "4 sources credited. Many more online if needed to back it up further, therefore erasing the idea of puffery as this is a common conception"). Read the bold part, that is your analysis, it is not in the sources. Regarding Foden or whatnot, I insist again: "multiple wrongs do not make a right" (is this aphorism too difficult to grasp in the English language?). I don't usually edit sportspeople articles out of spite and jealousy for supposed comparative grievances against other sportspeople articles (that is something a fan of a player may do in Wikipedia). Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:SYNTH and WP:PUFFERY have been already provided to you. Once you grasp what they are telling you, those are tools you can use to improve other articles. For example, the Foden one. Secondly, you may need to start to do this in the body of the article rather than the lead section.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I appreciate the suggestion and apologise that I went too far by changing your talk page, my english is convoluted. If you find this to be the case, then it’s simply your problem by failing to understand. Trying to use big words against me won’t do anything. Typing often leads to grammar being ignored. AtishT20 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Please note that I have reverted your edit of July 7, 2023 with edit summary "not necessary in the lead." What you removed in the edit was the result of consensus following an extensive discussion on the talk page.
Reverting it would require a new discussion and consensus on the talk page. Please also note that "not necessary in the lead" is not a transparent edit summary because it does not summarize what you have done in the edit, what you have removed or added.
Please also read WP:OWN#Featured_articles whose recommendation is particularly relevant to India, Wikpedia's oldest country Featured article, soon to be 19 years old. The page has over 4,000 watchers and not being explicit in your edit summary about what you have done, makes the job of maintaining the page so much the harder for these watchers. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indian subcontinent: The part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LordVoldemort728 was:
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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pyar Hua Iqrar Hua and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Do you have nothing better to do? I am archiving this because I do not want to waste my time seeing all your messages. You have been warned on your talk page about leaving messages. Now kindly go off with your day and nope there is no bias if I’ve removed ‘considered one of the best’ from other footballers pages as well. AtishT20 (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bro it’s obvious you have a bias against Bukayo. You literally have said that Reece James should be regarded as one of the best RBs because ESPN have him 4th. Guess where ESPN have Saka in best wingers. Karlampam (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still onto this? For your information nowhere did I say that it shouldn’t be included that he’s the best. The reason I removed it was because the sourcing was poor and the right attributions were not used. I very much respect Saka and what he has done at his age but that’s not going to affect my editing. I have also asked for further attributions to be added for players such as James and Bellingham with the correct number and type of sources. Now the page has the consideration so you can stop writing on my talk page thanks AtishT20 (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Greater Nepal did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Apologies, I’ll make sure not to do so again! I just found my previous edits to be wrong so was quite embarrassed by it so wanted to delete the evidence however this won’t happen again! Thanks! AtishT20 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
