Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thank you. So if I need to contact an administrator in the future, I could just leave a message on one of their user talk pages? CanonNi (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Your recent edit summary claims that that reference is 'generally unreliable' without elaborating on why. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and don't know much on this subject, and failed to see where the problem is. I wish you could elaborate on what made you say so. Hym3242 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for pointing the problem out. It was my mistake, as I blindly removed the source as it was marked by the unreliable script as "generally unreliable". I've reverted my edit. Thank you for asking! CanonNi (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Now when he is warned about getting blocked, he is doing it with his sockpuppet @ajju109. Check the pattern of his edits on BrahminSanadhya BrahminPaliwal . He is a confirmed sockpuppet made for the purpose of vandalising wikipedia articles. Mahishya (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This guy himself is sockpuppet of @Andy Murray and using my name with other user claiming me a sockpuppet. Just check @Andy murrey & @Mahishya edits both are same one account joined wiki today for vandalism and other joined 4 days ago for complanied. Ajju109 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ajju109 You have been warned by @NoobThreePointOh to not to remove any content and you made another account without caring for wikipedia rules and still vandalising different articles without any explanation. If that's not the edit war, i don't know what is. Its a clear edit war from your side while trying to manipulate the admins. Mahishya (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Just because you believe certain parts should not be included is no reason to blank the entire section. If you believe they should be removed, please discuss on the talk page. CanonNi (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
If you feel there's any of those that is more than the trivial "This song appeared in X" (as are almost all of the examples) or similar "Song was recorded by X" or "X other song uses the same melody", you're free to go and look for sources to back it up. As it stands, the page you linked to also gives plenty of "reasons for content removal", including "unsourced information" and "irrelevant information". So no, I don't believe "certain parts should not be included", but rather the "the whole of the affected section should not be included", which is why I consequently removed the entire section. 184.162.200.211 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:UCR states that, "There are various reasons for removing content from an article. Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary. If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." Please start a discussion on the talk page if you wish to remove the section again. CanonNi (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
"it should be described in the edit summary" - you not reading mine is not a me problem. The long list in the British Grenadiers article is the archetypical example (something Wikipedia has such a bad rap for, it's even a well known fact of internet culture, i.e. the mention on xkcd) of bad (and almost entirely unsourced) "in popular culture" content. As I said elsewhere, songs being sung is pretty much par for the course and including every instance of it would be very indiscriminate and irrelevant. 184.162.200.211 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Minor notification
What's up, CanonNi? Just letting you that after signing a fellow editor's guestbook
here, you forgot to sign by adding 4 tildes which produces your signature and time in UTC. Realised it was probably a little error so I fixed it for you. See you around! Volten001☎17:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The submissions were declined because their subcategories don't exist. Also, please stop pinging me with "Please review. The." Thank you. CanonNi (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for resubmitting. I have accepted the requests. In the future, please make sure the pages in the proposed categories exist. CanonNi (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
