Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) personon Ben Stokes, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! 331dot (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
September 2023
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Sri Lanka national cricket team have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Copying/moving content within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from ICC Champions Trophy into 2017 ICC Champions Trophy. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cricket diplomacy into India–Pakistan cricket rivalry. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited India at the Cricket World Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICC. 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.)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. 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. wjematherplease leave a message...15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a head's up, I'm about to remove the section you've re-added to the 2023 Cricket World Cup page. I think it needs discussion on the article talk page as three editors will now have removed it. I'll start that discussion in a moment so if you could be patient I'd appreciate it Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you'll see, it's not just the referencing issue that I have concerns about. There are aspects of partiality and synthesis that concern me as well as the ones I've raised at the article talk page. And, quite frankly, it's just too long. I do appreciate, however, that you had collapsed it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Begocc. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2023 Cricket World Cup 1st semi-final 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. Begocc (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Cricket World Cup background until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The point of a template is to provide links to relevant articles that exist. There is 0 benefit to adding the years for articles that won't be created for 4 or 8 years (like 2027 WC Final) onto {{Cricket World Cup}}, please only add to this if it's for links to articles that exist (or are likely to be created in the near future) and are relevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Cricket World Cup 1st semi-final until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Please do not re-add content without references. Find the references and/or add context to tables without any per the long-standing agreement at the cricket wiki project. It's not OK to have content which is just lists of data without any form of referencing. You've been warned about this above by others. Stop it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yo then just add issue comments to add references if something does not have references does not mean it needs to be removed. Things which you have removed were there for a long time, are true and can be easily be referenced. You removed 13k pixels worth of content without a discussion on it Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're finding it difficult to find references for the large table of individual awards. That's the easy one to find - although the table probably doesn't belong on this page. Just because something has been there or is there somewhere else it doesn't mean that it has any value whatsoever - we have far too many editors who want to add statistical tables and can't be bothered to either source the trivia they're adding or write any context whatsoever to support it. So we end up with articles, like the one in question, which were once Featured Articles but were delisted. Good luck with getting that FA status back again if you insist on a tonne of trivia Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
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.
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cricket diplomacy into Cross-Strait relations. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
As you have violated WP:SOCK with your Confirmed sockpuppet account, Ipad4444, I have blocked this account for one month. That should give you time to read and thoroughly understand WP:SOCK and WP:VANDAL, and consider whether you wish to abide by Wikipedia's policies going forward. --Yamla (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2023 (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).
I understand the ban, im just *askng*, not debating, just asking whether we can have seperate accounts after the ban ends. I genuinely do have a brother, though I understand why wikipedia may not think so, hence ill stay the ban, would just like to know what to do next. Also it would be great if the ban was shortened, though I understand it. Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You are blocked, not banned, the two terms have different meanings here. If the other account is operated by a different person, they should request unblocking and convince an admin that they are a completely different person from you. For your block to be removed early, you will need to do the same- please read the policies indicated if you haven't already. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2023 (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.
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).
Im back from exams so sorry for not getting back; I understand the difference in banned and blocked now. I have stayed away from editing and do want to get back into it, and will make sure the ip is different as well as not commit other violations. The other account wont be used as Im not sure how I can prove it was not me; unless theres another way. If there isnt, it wont be used and will be deleted by us. Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedurally closing this unblock request as the block has now expired (and you have resumed editing). Please take the advice given above into consideration going forward. DanCherek (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2024 (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.
Attribution for merges
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kapil Dev as Indian national cricket coach into Kapil Dev. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to 2000 ICC KnockOut Trophy Final. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
I'm actually quite in favor of this delete, as I find any sort of reactionary snub talk to be trivial. I tolerated it because it received significant press coverage and sourcing. In doing so, I maintained a firm hand in preventing excessive edits, such as reactions from irrelevant people (Hillary Clinton and others) who have zero connection to 2023 films.
Anyway, the reason I came to chat here with you was to get your feedback on the previous year's page. There's a section for "Andrea Riseborough's 'controversial' nomination", which irks me terribly. I find it disrespectful on one hand, as it is similar in subjective implications; accusations of unfairness, blah blah. ((Blaming her alone for the snubs of Danielle Deadwyler for Till and/or Viola Davis for The Woman King, as if Ana de Armas for Blonde (in spite of the movie being a reviled and a Razzie-nominee or winner) or Michelle Williams (going lead instead of supporting) aren't equally culpable—Or as I always say, don't blame them, just blame the Academy. They didn't rank the others high enough.))
But also, it sets a bad precedent. I figured, if the Barbie section is deleted, would you consider it fair and justified to delete that section under the same circumstances? What do you think? --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely! The barbie thing straight up pissed me off, id be in favour to delete that section too, though im not familiar. If what you say is true, id support it as well Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for the vote of confidence, haha. Okay, so it would be a worthwhile deletion. Not sure if I could suggest an alternate place to post it, as you did with the Barbenheimer page to soften the blow. But that's not required. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh496: Hi, I'm Birdienest81. I'd like to introduce myself as an editor who has edited several Oscar ceremony pages and helped them get promoted to featured list . I would like to say thank you for removing the so-called Barbie "snub". Sure, it got lots of media coverage right off the bat after the nominations were announced three weeks ago, but I was worried that this would set up a dangerous precedent for how both past and future Oscar ceremonies would be covered given that there are always snubs and that "snub" is highly subjective depending on the reader. Don't even get me started on the Brokeback Mountain, Saving Private Ryan, or Roma snubs. If we did that for almost every Oscar ceremony, this would violate I think Wikipdia's standards for a neutral point of view and objectivity. So, once again I thank you for your boldness to nip this in the bud.
Now about the Andrea Risenborough "controversy", I'm leaning toward removing it as well. However, when I submitted the 95th Oscars ceremony for featured list promotion, RunningTiger123 suggested about keeping it since there was a lot of news coverage about it. So, I decided to leave it as is with a few tweaks. I think the reason we decided to keep it was that the controversy resulted in rule changes in Oscar campaigning rules similar to how the #OscarsSoWhite controversy forced membership admission changes. That's is quite different than say Barbie being snubbed which is on par with Brokeback Mountain failing to win Best Picture and similar omissions. I'd like to get feedback from RunningTiger123, Cowlibob, and SNUGGUMS since they have advised me on several Oscar ceremonies into FL status. Because I feel that moving forward, there has to be a line drawn between objectivity and opinion.
Thanks for joining in the discussion, Birdie! That's precisely what gave me pause regarding Andrea's section. I was about to swipe it away when I scrutinized it more meticulously, and realized it had nothing to do with bitterness about the unfortunate omissions of Deadwyler or Davis (which as we all agree opens Pandora's Box to a dangerous precedent).
As I think I mentioned somewhere, before KeybladeMaster's sockpuppet was blocked, that person set-up the section if I recall correctly, and then kept trying to include various celebrity statements. It's one thing from Ryan Gosling, nominated for the film. But Hillary Clinton?! Useless Instagram Lack-of-Influencer #43? LOLNO, stop. Nobody connected with the film or nominated from it have any business infiltrating this article. I'm glad we're all taking a firm stance on this so that I know for future reference.
But I digress. Point is, as you stated, the section dealt much more with the rule changes. Perhaps though we all can compromise by toning down the section? How much of it is truly fact versus speculation, hearsay, and conspiracy theories? So I'm interested to see what the discussion conjures. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk12:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now we are just dumping this trivial mess to the Barbie page? It would be probably be best to first userfy and rewrite it to be encyclopedia ready. MikeAllen16:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that to the movie article would also be a bad idea for the same rationale I gave above. No amount of rewriting could make such complaints worth mentioning. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(commenting now because I was busy during the original ping) The discussion around Barbie's snubs gained a fair amount of coverage (both in the industry press and more mainstream media), and there is some precedent for mentioning snubs. Brokeback Mountain is the most obvious example, but I've added similar lines in some FLs I worked on – see the awards lists for The Wire or The Office for examples. But I think we can cut the section way down; a sentence or two should suffice, and the quotes/specific reactions aren't really important. Maybe something like: Gerwig and Robbie's lack of nominations for Best Director and Best Actress, respectively, were considered snubs by some fellow actors, critics, and journalists (add refs), though those criticisms sparked their own backlash (add refs).RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was thinking as well. Originally, this is practically all it was. That very first paragraph. It was pared down. When first introduced, it was worded in a sensationalist manner, but all it takes as stated above is plainly wording it. These are the people; they didn't get nominated. Plus Gosling's reaction was mentioned, which was prominently featured throughout most articles referring to the "snubs" that day. (Although his quote isn't necessary either; just stating what was. I think it may have been quoted in full, but I might have removed it, and left it at just "Best Supporting Actor nominee Ryan Gosling expressed his disappointment in a statement"? It's been a while; too lazy to check.)
Gradually, excess reactions from Whoopi, Clinton, and several other useless tidbits were included. They were then removed, except Whoopi just to provide a counterpoint at the time. Again, this isn't necessary either.
What might be worth emphasizing is that despite being snubbed for Director/Actress, Gerwig was still nominated for Screenplay and Robbie as a producer. I think those aspects tie into the counter-backlash stemming from the "snub" fervor. What RunningTiger123 wrote is perfect, with this in addition. How about (something like):
Gerwig's and Robbie's lack of nominations for Best Director and Best Actress, respectively, were considered snubs by several fellow actors, critics, and journalists (add refs), although those criticisms sparked their own backlash (add refs). Several of those from the latter highlighted the fact that Gerwig and Robbie nevertheless each earned an Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture (as producer), respectively.(cite refs) --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk01:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just had to fail two of your cricket GANs because they were a long way from being ready. I respect your enthusiasm for nominating articles, but please make sure any future nominations actually meet the WP:GACR before you nominate. It is a waste of reviewers time to have to write quickfails for articles that obviously don't meet the criteria. In particular, both of the articles I just failed (Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy and Kapil Dev) had piles of unsourced text, which ought to have been addressed before nominating. ♠PMC♠ (talk)04:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review my nominations. I am not that experienced of an editor yet, however will look to definitely improve on the suggestions. Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I have worked on the 75 page, and I would request you to take a friendly look at it to see if it has improved. I have added more sources, and would love opinions before renominating Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have tried to add all possible sources. Could you please help in identifying the particular sections which can do with more? Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could begin the review and then advise, and I could correct there? I know a lot of the other things are fixed from the previous review. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding your edit on Lakshadweep, your current wording talks about the row that erupted which is simply news and not does not talk about what was the impact. If you want to add regarding the row post the visit of the PM, please mention the impact on Lakshadweep as that might be relevant to the subject (say if any infrastructure have been sanctioned, increase in tourist numbers etc.). Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2024 India–Maldives diplomatic row. 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 special powers 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 practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Thanks for your contributions to Delhi Capitals in 2023. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Article wizard/Redirects. 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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Deji 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, Pharaoh496!
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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Reports to that forum work best if the person you are reporting has done four reverts in about 24 hours. 24 hours is just a guideline - if they did it over a 30 hour period it is still worth reporting them. But if they did four reverts over a month, it is not.
One of your comments was I wrote a message on his talk page and the guy simply removed it! If you read WP:OWNTALK, it says "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages."-- Toddy1(talk)21:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The users I mentioned have participated in these discussions dozens of times prior to me pinging them. They vote per their choice, I simply ping them to let them know of an ongoing discussion. They can come and vote however they want. I am not trying to cause any disruption in the consensus building process.
For someone who has displayed on his talk page that it is "impersonal" and "disrespectful" to send warning templates, the least bare minimum effort you should always be doing is to do the same and manually type what you wanna convey.
It would do you good to actually respond to replies you get for your messages on talk pages, instead of ignoring replies you do not agree with.
MOREOVER: I have just read what canvassing is - What I HAVE done is ping users; most who have voted before, and not just one particular stance. It mentions thats perfectly okay to do Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you used the phrase as I have seen them in support for such article removals makes it sound like you were picking them based on how you think they'll vote. If that wasn't the intention, then that is still how it can come across to people. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was not the intention; and even though I say that I ping those who go the other way too. Let us all reflect on how we can improve as editors. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kishori Lal Sharma for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Please do not refer to good-faith edits as vandalism, as you did at Narendra Modi. Such aspersions may lead to you being sanctioned. In this case, the new image appears to be clearer in representing Modi. Black Kite (talk)19:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new image looks clear but it is blurred on desktop and mobile until you click on it. Furthermore, the previous image, also well cited, resembles in angle the previous two. To maintain the continuity as on the article where they are placed one below the other, the old one should be used. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pharaoh496. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Delhi Capitals in2023, 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.
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! 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.
