User talk:202.156.182.84

talk · contribs ) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your IP address, 202.156.182.84, is registered to StarHub Cable Vision Ltd, an Internet service provider through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy, so you may receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. Review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

I have created numerous articles for submission. Most have been approved. These are still awaiting approval. Please help by reviewing and approving, as I do not wish to become a registered editor. Thanks in advance for your time. This list will be kept current with periodical updates.

1. Draft:Dayanand Brahm Mahavidyala, Hisar
2. Draft:Gudana
3. Draft:Indus College of Nursing, Khanda Kheri
4. Draft:Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation
5. Draft:Government College, Adampur
6. Draft:Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Ved Vidya Pratishthan
7. Draft:Government College, Data
8. Draft:Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board
9. Draft:Mata Jiyo Devi College of Education, Khanda Kheri
10. Draft:Government College, Barwala
11. Draft:AJL-National Herald Panchkula land grab scam
12. Draft:Haryana Financial Corporation
13. Draft:Government College, Kheri Chaupta
14. Draft:Maharishi Balmiki Sanskrit University, Kaithal
15. Draft:Maharana Pratap Horticultural University, Karnal
16. Draft:Government College, Narnaund
17. Draft:Haryana Vishwakarma Skill University
18. Draft:Gurugram-Manesar IMT land scam
19. Draft:Smrat Hemu's haveli in Rewari
20. Draft:Government College, Uklana
21. Draft:Maharani Lakshmi Bai Post Graduate College, Bhiwani Rohilla
22. Draft:Panchkula-HUDA Industrial plots allotment scam
23. Draft:Imperial PG College

To be created

1. <insert, running list>

Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a
  reliable sources
  .
• No
  abuse of multiple accounts
  .
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The

@

CityOfSilver Instead of summary reverts as default options (which violates wikipedia policies of goodfaith and cooperative edits), try to enhance the edit. Anyway, I am reinserting the "modified" text. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And, how come you are leaving unsourced text in that article while summarily reverting (instead of cooperatively enhancing it)? Why are you not applying the same HIGH-criteria to all the edits across that article? How come you have left low-quality edits by others there, while cherry picking on my edit? Please review newer edits and enhance it if there is any deficiency. or discuss on the article talk page. If you deem any POV, then you must specify the "exact" passage that is POV unsupported by the sources. Summary revert with no specifics are "Disruptive Edits". Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Northern Region Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted content with sources. To enhance the article, I have also added other sourced content to this article. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page

Thanks bot, I usually rework the articles (rephrase, better source, etc) if there is an issue with my edit. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thanks for helping me improve my edits. I have address this issue. Text reinserted with new and better sources. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Bharat Broadband Network has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thanks Diana for helping me improve the article with your suggestions. It was an outdated article. I have invested several days to significantly enhance the article. I have reworked that article to address your concern. I noticed anything that you might have removed, has not deleted bulk of my work, which is great. Keep your constructive feedback coming. Thanks for passionately spending time on wikipedia. Regards. 202.156.182.84 (talk)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Banda Singh Bahadur into Farrukhsiyar. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can this rule please be removed. I can see why it is there, "appropriate attribution" to mitigate risk of intellectual property violation. First, this kind of seems unnecessary as no third party is going to sue wikipedia for the intellectual property violation. Second, too many rules are tiring and tend to put people off. Third, beside it must be time consuming for you and others to just remind editors to use this rule. Overall, I see a lot of wastage of effort with little "rational" benefit to wikipedia (legal risk mitigation), rules enforcers (admins and volunteers) and community of editors. If you have the powers or know the people who could please take it up in the appropriate forum to have this rule abolished. Then you can utilize your time in coaching and advising editors on more high-power big-impact issues. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a legal requirement, not a rule. It's not going to be changed, or rather I'm certain that the Foundation would not change it and we certainly can't. It's not optional and at times can help us find who originally inserted a blatant copyright violation which could get us sued, or to discover that someone is copying us. I'm sorry if it's a nuisance but it isn't optional and editors do get blocked for persistently ignoring requests not do it it, something easily avoided by a few words in an edit summary. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. I understand, I have taken to inserting it in change history comments. there might be times we might miss. I try to make my change history comprehensive, specially on contentious articles, if article is being watched by other editors (so as to keep them on board) or if my changes are significant. I am still wondering, if there can be an automated solution to meet this legal requirement without having to manually insert. Let us keep an open mind and eventually some solution might come pop up. You know this wiki stuff better than I do. If I have a solution brain wave on this in future, I will run it past you. Thanks for your time and effort to nicely explain. Regards. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As copying may have taken place more than once, even a quick compare might show that it could have come from several articles, and we need to know which as that makes it easier to trace it back to the original. Anyway, anything like that would cost money and there are other priorities. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Sometimes, I make an edit in one place and might reuse it in multiple places to "connect the dots" and to provide the contextual linkages between topics. I hope it is not considered a "bad edit". Any tips for me to avoid any pitfalls (while minimizing bureaucratic hurdles)? Thanks Doug. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Bingobro (Chat) 13:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Help me understand, exactly which "specific policy" was violated by my edit, by citing the "exact phrase" of the policy? As of now, I fail to understand what exactly did I do wrong, hence unable to fix it or prevent it in future. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure buddy, first stop adding those busiest airport images then, those images are completely unneeded.If I wanted I could have reverted your edits under vandalism however I reverted them under GOOD FAITH.So, you should consider reading our policies and creating an account.If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. Bingobro (Chat) 13:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a subjective interpretation by you that they are not needed. How is it vandalism to standardise and enhance with the relevant content? Vandalism is too big a word for "your subjective choice". It is in fact vandalism to revert other enhancements simply because some editor personally does not like the enhancement but it violate no specific policy. No one owns the wikipedia. If you misuse nay tools then it will be violation of policies. And there is no policy that prevents any unregistered member to edit. All members are treated equal and edit must be evaluated based on the merit of the content and not based on "subjective" taste of someone. If my edit violated no policy and if only subjective taste of yours then it is vandalism and disruption for you to revert it. It is wrong to throw a huge manual without citing a specific passage to demonstrate that I edit violated nay policy. This is bully and misuse of any tools. Please no one owns wikipedia and no one came here to waste their time, Cooperate and do not disrespect others valid edits, do not bully with threats of misusing tools to revert my edits if I question you and ask you to cite the specific rule "text" that shows I actually violated anything. Please do not do that. With power comes responsibility. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if you think busiest airport should not be there then you should have said it in firts place and not invent an post-fact excuse just to get back at me. Even then I will cooperate with you, say insert busiest airport image only with busiest airport. The main principal of wiki is "Cooperative Edits", you could have specifically mentioned any acitonable objection in the very first instance and collaborate by enhancing it, e.g. if you really tried to embrace the spirit of wikipedia collaboartion then you would have invested your time in removing the busiest airport image from Gaya Airport instead of waste much more time here to write messages, issue these messages and threaten to misuse tools against me. This is totally UNwikipedia like behavior behavior this is disruptive. if you antagonize someone and disrespect others edits, then always must be very specific in very first instance. I am happy to cooperate with you. But, please be responsible also. Please make "better" use of your time and effort, not just "play" with tools and warnings/messages. Use your passion right and more fruitful way please. I will reinsert "airport of India images" on Gaya Airport and will leave out the busiest airport image. Will that be okay with you? If not, please enlighten me why not? Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of "busiest airport" image in smaller airport articles, I can see your post-fact argument. My rationale to place that image, along with 'airports of India" image, was that even small airports can grow to big due to recently released GOI aviation policy to boost aviation in India and specially due to the various rounds of bidding in UDAN (128 regional routes in round-1 in April 201 and 500+ more regional routes in round-2 to many more regional airports to be awarded in Dec 2017). Readers can appreciate how a particular airport, big or small, compares to other airports of India, that was my reason to include that 2nd image "busiest airports of India". besides, what is an unknown airport today could be a strategic or busiest airport tomorrow. Please keep an open mind and you will start seeing the reasons why that image should be kept there. I also noticed you recently spent a lot of time on Gaya Airport. Do not feel too attached to any one article, it will bring you and others heartache. Sometimes let people be, as long as they are "not" really violating anything. Seems you might be passionate about Gaya or its airport, if so, imagine having busiest airport image is another a cause of inspiration for the people of Gaya to get their airport to that level. And, I wish you good luck with it. Hope I get to visit it. :) 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, buddy in fact I'm interested and passionate about all Indian (sub-continental) aviation articles and you may check it out in my contributions.Lets not get all personal here and be calm. Bingobro (Chat) 16:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that just there is no need of those images there.And also your'e edits at UDAN are appreciated!Bingobro (Chat) 16:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as I know a small airport today can be a hub in the far future (at least 10 years) . Bingobro (Chat) 16:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look, I have created and submitted a missing airstrip near Gurugram in Delhi NCR

Draft:Gurugram Airstrip, Bhondsi. Since it was submitted via wikipedia tool for article creation for non-registsrted editors, it is pending review and approval for publication. You are welcome to edit, review, approve, suggest changes. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

BingoBro, I noticed you are passionate about Airports in India. I suggest to create the wiki articles on the missing airports on wiki, India has nearly 500 airports (excluding seaplane landing sites, 500,000 water bodies and 7000km coastline that could become millions of seaplane airports). I have already created articles on few airports, if you want to have a go here is the list, you can start with your own state and neighboring states. These are from UDAN website. 406 unserved airports, 18 underserved airports, 2 non-RCS (presumably currently well-served airports). Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so prompt. Please review, enhance and approve another article which I had submitted yesterday.

Draft:Gurugram Airstrip, Bhondsi. I am surprised that an article submitted today was approved while the article submitted yesterday is still pending. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

So kind of you. Big thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2018 (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 David.moreno72 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Nanak Shahi bricks instead.

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:Lakhori bricks
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 02:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 202.156.182.84, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! David.moreno72 02:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks

Draft:Haveli Dharampura. Thanks again. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @

Draft:Palla barrage.
And two rulers:
Draft:Sangat Singh Chauhan, and
Draft:Sultan Singh Chauhan.
Thanks.
202.156.182.84 (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not accept

Draft:ITO_barrage because the history section is blank; you may want to check that. I am currently reviewing the others. --TKK! bark with me! 22:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This draft has some referencing issues that need to be looked at, essentially my concerns have already been raised by the other reviewer. Same with Draft:Sangat Singh Chauhan. I approved 3 of the barrage articles, save for the one I pointed out earlier. --TKK! bark with me! 23:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @

Draft:Karnal division: Created the 2 missing out of 6 divisions of Haryana. These kind of articles usually remain stubs, I have provided amble references for the notability.
(e) Sultan Singh and Sangat Singh: I will come back to research and improve on these sometime later. If I start those now, I will end up finding many more articles to create. I want to get through my pending "to do" list first.
Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
  inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners
  , for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is
  Wikipedia:Copy-paste
  .
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thanks for letting me know the issue. I hve made a large amount of incremental changes to that article yesterday. I just reviewed the reverts and fortunately it is a very small portion compared to the cumulative changes I have made. Hence, should be easier to fix for me. I will attempt to address and edit the reverted portion again later this week. Going to take a break from editing for today. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I did review it. The removed content is of minor importance, so lets leave it out (won't be finding better sourced content for now as the most of important content is already retained). Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (202.156.182.84) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! naveenpf (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already fixed this issue. It is a pdf file of a research article. I have removed the link and reinserted all other valid edits with appropriate citations from all the articles (2 articles). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2017 (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 David.moreno72 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published,

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

References do not support claims. For instance, the first reference talks about salt taxation and is not about the subject. It's the same for the second reference. The third reference is a line entry that isn't about the subject. The fourth reference is Wikipedia and cannot be used.

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:Sultan Singh Chauhan 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 12:23, 19 December 2017 (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 David.moreno72 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

References do not mention the subject.

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:Sangat Singh Chauhan 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 12:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wazirabad barrage, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TKK! bark with me! 22:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I did not add or delete any content from that article. I just cleaned it up. Before or after my changes it was no better or worse in terms of quality. There was only one source at bottom from a blog, I just appropriately converted it to a proper reference. That is it. That one is a poor quality article, needs better source and more sources, etc. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, my interest in that article was only fleeting. I was avoiding getting dragged into that article. But, since you arrived here, so I am now involved. Article had no citations. Hence, someone might mark it for deletion. I just researched "google books" and added 8 books as "Further reading". I did it in a manner that those are easy to convert to the "citations". You or other editors can now take my "Further reading" sources and use those to enhance the article to their own taste. I am not emotionally attached to that topic or article, and my interest level in that article is very low. Since I am already involved, I have done my bit by adding 8 potential sources without touching the article, that way no other editor will be upset that I disturbed their edits. I will leave it at that for now. You are welcome to use those source as you like. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please create proper headers. The should be no carriage returns / newlines between the opening pair of equal signs (==) and the closing pair. Do not add line breaks in the headers. This will break them and make them nonfunctional. That is a bad thing -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, correct, I know. In this case, not sure where it took place, but if it did then surely was an inadvertent mistake. Thanks in advance if you have already fixed it. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Music of India. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 09:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I find it confusing. Please enlighten me more on the "specific actionable issues" in what way my sourced edits are vandalism, so that I can fix the issues and have the history included in that article. As of now, the article is lacking, as it has no origin/history of Music of India. I am doing my sincere effort and I did not find any vandalism. Please review your actions with open mind and if you think you made a mistake, please restore the edits. In case there is no reply from you after a day or so, I will restore the edits or else you can provide me the list of "specific actionable issues" to fix. Unfortunately, I can not fix what I do not "specifically" know I did wrong. Otherwise this vague message is neither helpful (in fixing any issues, if they exist) nor acceptable. I am not being disrespectful to your effort in informing me. Please use restraint and caution, specially be more "responsible" while using automated tools, e.g. put more "minutes" of your effort to thoroughly check and then explain the fixable-specifics if you revert someone's "hours" of works. No hurt, all in goodfaith. Please work with me, and I will happily cooperate very nicely with you, while mutually respecting each other's effort in a collaborative manner. Help/teach/learn/collaborate with me to take this article forward. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking potential causes. Sometimes when an editor makes an edit in one place and reuses parts of it in other articles to pipeline and interlink the "context", then automated anti-vandalism tools might mistakenly flag it as repeated copy-paste vandalism. It is not considered copyvio or vandalism, specially if its your own edits and if it is done in the right way e.g. no mass copy paste but take only what applies to the context and rephrase it. If you read my talk-page above, some kindhearted reviewers/admins also taught me a good tip to insert "edits comments" which article the content was copied from. That way the reviewer using the automated tool can read the edit comment, and determine that the automated tool incorrectly flagged the vandalism. Anyway, I will wait for your reply till tomorrow. If no reply, I will assume, you are read, busy and okay with me restoring my edits. In case you are away for much longer, and still find my edits objectionable at a much later date, please still let me know the "specifics" to fix. I will try my best to learn/fix and still enhance this article. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and approval. Please peruse my other draft articles I have submitted for the review and approval:
(a) 1.

Draft:Railway in Haryana: created more articles. I might need to further fork out the 6. History of railway in Haryana into a separate article for a neater look and to make it future-proof (as it grows). What do you think?
(d) 7. Draft:Faridabad division: Created the last missing division out of total 6 divisions of Haryana. These kind of articles usually remain stubs, I have provided amble references for the notability.

Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop adding newlines to headers. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the last month, you have created at least 10 of these busted up headers. Stop doing it, it is breaking rendering on pages that you've done it to. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

== Please Do Not Create Headers Like This When You Edit ==

Because they break page rendering.

• Do not put [ENTER] / [RETURN] / [NEWLINE] / [LINEFEED] into the middle of your headers

-- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of "how not to break the headers", this is second time someone has left me a message on this. Causing this error is not deliberate from me. Sorry for the inconvenience. I think this is happening only when I submit the request for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. Before submitting my request, I am careful enough to review my edit. All looks fine in the review, yet as it gets submitted the automated "java script" might have caused this problem in 2 cases (out of 25+ redirect submissions from me). I can not think of any other reason. And, I do not know how to avoid this problem, specially everything seems good in the pre-submission preview. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking further, it could be caused by the insertion of line break between the multiple new "namespaces" submitted for the creation of redirect. Is it possible for you to submit a "change request" to the developer of the automated java script to either "ignore the line breaks between the name spaces" or at least "insert a comment in the template there to alter the editors to not use the line break inbetween the multiple redirect namespaces". Thanks for altering me too. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try reviewing your edits after saving them, and re-edit them to correct the erroneous line-breaks. Others don't seem to have the problem you're having, since other people submit similar requests with similar or longer counts, so it would seem like the problem is on your end, and not with the request submission template. Are you adding line-breaks in the middle of your requests? If so, stop doing that. You cannot add linefeeds/returns/newlines/linebreaks into your requests. Indeed, why are you doing that, since the submissions are not done that way, as your browser should automatically wrap the text around in the HTML TEXTAREA you are using to submit your entry. Stop adding linebreaks. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Discussion with you has been useful as it got me thinking. Heading comes out broken only when I insert a line break between multiple new namespaces to redirect from i.e. line break in the first section in the redirect creation template. Basically, if I do not insert any line break between multiple redirects to be created in the first section then all is well. If possible, please have a comment inserted in the template to remind editors. i.e. "Enter the title of the new redirect you would like created below this line" in the template can be changed to something similar to "Enter the title of the new redirect you would like created below this line. Do not insert line or page breaks between multiple redirects to be created." Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Laul, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I admire your enthusiasm in adding content to Sino-Indian border dispute. However, when you want to make large scale changes, it would be better to raise the issues on the talk page first and find out how other editors feel about it. Also, you need to slow down significantly. Adding 15,000 bytes of text in a day without any feedback from other users is risky. If somebody objects (I do, in fact) and reverts the edits, a lot of your effort would have been wasted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion and encouragement. It makes sense. Please review the changes when you have time. Arunachal Pradesh disputed sites are still light on the content, Akasi Chin needs further condensation and red namespaces border posts/villages need to be created, etc. I will try later this week, you are welcome to help in the mean time. Regards. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please peruse my other draft articles I have submitted for the review and approval:
(a) 1.

Draft:Railway in Haryana: created more articles. I might need to further fork out the 6. History of railway in Haryana into a separate article for a neater look and to make it future-proof (as it grows). What do you think?
(d) 7. Draft:Faridabad division: Created the last missing division out of total 6 divisions of Haryana. These kind of articles usually remain stubs, I have provided amble references for the notability. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No, unfortunately, your understanding of the article does not agree with mine. For me, this article is about explaining what the disputes are and how they have arisen. It is not so much about what happened since 1950 or whenever. So the history section at the front is pointless. In reality, the history starts way back during the British colonial times. For the same reason, I also don't like putting Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh into one section, and downgrading all its subsections to lower levels. They were completely separate problems, which China prefers to link, but India doesn't. I am yet to look at all other changes you have made. There were far too many. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the history section. We have the similar understanding. All I had done was renamed the heading to "history" of the pre-existing chronological text created by other editors before me. I did not find any use of it in the article what i touched/re-did (disputed areas sections categorised under three sectors). I did not change the text within the history section (except renaming the heading). I did change the rest of the article significantly in the structure as well as the content (disputed areas). If you wish to delete the "history section", I agree with it and please go ahead. Just do a quick check if some of it (only if adds value) can be added to any of the "disputed areas". Thanks buddy for your willingness to collaborate. Much appreciated. I am not emotionally attached to the article or my edits. You can chop, change, throw away some of my work too, all okay by me. I understood you and that your intentions are sincere towards wikipedia content, guidelines and co-editors. Besides you are behaving nicely to me. Keep it up. You have my trust and respect. Go ahead and freely review and make whatever changes you want to make to that article. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also created the "dispute resolution section", that is still fluffy and needs expansion. I did not touch the "article lead", that also needs revamp based on the latest article. If you are inclined to take care of these, please go ahead. Regards. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, based on our discussion here and to incorporate your valid suggestion, I have removed the History section from the Sino-Indian border dispute by merging it with the existing "disputed areas" subheadings and by creating two more disputed areas subheadings (Daulta beg Oldi and Burtse) that did not exist. This way I have used all the text from History section, but in more organised and readable manner. In the next rounds of clean up, I will enhance the "lead" (rephrase) and "Dispute Resolution" (add more text). Please review my latest edit and enhance it further as you deem fit. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 202.156.182.84. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Doug Weller talk 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please re-read my message from 9 January. I am glad that you are now discussing on the talk page. But that kind of a long post is not effective. It is a good idea to make a separate post about each issue, preferably in its own section/subsection, and keep your posts short (something like 4-5 lines, unless it is a very complicated issue). People need to be able to see your views and other editors' views on one screen without having to go back and forth. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Help:Talk pages for how to format posts, with indentation etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a page number has not been provided, you can add {{page needed}} tag. There should be no need to delete the content, unless you can convince all the involved editors on the talk page that it is dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it, Thanks for the valuable tips. I will keep it in mind.
Right now others might be reacting on knee-jerk impulse and they might not take me seriously on equal terms. As experienced editors they would not have survived if they were unfair. Suppose, even if I was right but act like an a**hole, then no one will like me and my edits. I am trying to keeping it "genuinely and no-tricks nice" towards them. Once they realise this and that I am only trying to pick gaps in the current article, they will value me and my edits more openly. I am counting on their ability to not force themselves to keep their mind open. I want to give them time to introspect for few days, before I revisit ISVC talkpage.

For example, as for ISVC, "Indus-Sarasvati Civilization" has e.g. 2000+ hits (credible enough as standalone to be included in the article as per wikiguideline), moreover its Hindi version सरस्वती घाटी सभ्यता has 65,000+ hits and Hindi wiki on ISVC also has "Indus-Sarasvati Civilization" in the lead. We can not have a bias towards online-only english-only sources with flawed-"google hit count"-methodology.

About Dough, he seems sensible guy, I kinda like him though I do not "completely agree with his revert. Other guy I do not have an opinion, he was kind enough to provide a "specific" response, hence it was easy for me to reply rationally. I did not like his mass labeling of me, but it might just be innocent knee-jerk reaction, just give him more time, I have faith he might be good too. Have a good weekend. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to get into the content dispute here on your talk page. I am just giving you tips that might you more effective in editing Wikipedia and debating issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to involve you in disputes. I do not use others. That would unkind.

I am mature enough to resolve my own issues cordially with commonsensical discussions with stakeholder without hiding behind wikipedia guidelines. I do challenge status quo if I see a deficiency in the article and some times I get push back, that is normal part of building the consensus, e.g. stir the pot, show reason by developing the point in logical manner and usually people come around. So far, I have resolved all the issues on my or article talkpages in the cordial manner without getting into tussles. People have disagreed and vice versa, but I have not had any edit wars because I reply to every question sincerely, and to provide transparency I explain my thinking behind my logic to eliminate doubts.

I was thankful for your help and repaid you in kind on Sino-border dispute page to cater for your concerns.

You were suddenly arrogant and rude on Jat page where you sarcastically said "nice try", then put me down with "just an IP". Kautilya, I was surprised by that tone. I simply ignored that negativity there because you had commented here previously on my talkpage. As you already know, arrogance and negativity are not in line with five principals or the civility guidelines. IP and registered users are all equal. Rules are clear, no one is a boss or follower, we are all equal collaborators on wikipedia. I did not reply in the same tone to avoid negativity. I refrained from reminding these rules to you there. Also, I did not leave a message on your talkpage. The reason for it is "I have to be kind" even if you were unkind (people make mistakes sometimes). Because, earlier I saw 2 or 3 people had left warnings on your talkpage. I did not want other to pounce on you if I left a message on your talkpage or high traffic jat page. Out of this consideration for you, I did not leave a messages on your talkpage or jat page, to remind you to remain civil and to not create a discriminatory attitude against IPs. I have respected you so far, continue to respect me, mutual respect. You still can disagree with me, but refute me logically point by point with a good heart, that is all I ask for. I am already giving you the same.

I understand you are ambitious, eager to earn tools, recognition and adminship. Be assertive but control the mood swings and knee-jerk reactions. Remain helpful, friendly and in control of your emotions. Why need to go off the hook suddenly?

I am posting this on my talkpage, rarely anyone visits here, I do not have stalker enemies and I am not popular either. So the chances of it being seen by your enemies are low (less harassment for you by others, the ones I saw leaving warning on your talkpage earlier for disputes). Remain nice to me, I am already nice to you. Please correct your mistakes towards me. If I make a mistake, tell me nicely, I will fix it. You and me have more in common than differences. In future we still can have occasional issue-based cordial constructive differences, that should not stop the cordiality. It works better to be a good sweet boy.

Please do not get addicted to wikipedia. Do not let wikipedia be in control of your moods and personal happiness. There is more to life outside of it, go experience it. After few years everything we created, will be rephrased by someone else.No edit will last. we will be dead. Wikipedia will be dead too when it gets replaced by new app/platform based on 5D VR augmented-reality AI based content, and it may happen within our life time. Context, bro. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 202.156.182.84. You have new messages at TheMagikCow's talk page.
Message added 07:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TheMagikCow (T) (C) 07:29, 24 January 2018 (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 The Drover's Wife was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Faridabad division instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There is already an article on this subject. This draft has a bit more content than the current article - however, it will need to be added over there.

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:Faridabad division 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. I had not noticed. When I created the draft article, I did not see any existing article on it. Someone might have directly created an article after I submitted my draft but before my draft got approved. I have merged my draft article with the existing one and marked my draft article for deletion. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop adding Wordpress publications as references to our Indian River articles, as you did at

Okay no worries, though the organisation itself seems respectable. Next iteration can try to find better soruce,s hopefully other editors can also help. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This river and waterbodies NGO has own website also. Later will try to check it out to see if it has better sources on its own website. In the meantime, you are welcome to assist if this topic interests you. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me delete

Tangri river, it is copy of Dangri. Same river, two names. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2018 (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 David.moreno72 was:

Chakla is not mentioned in the second entries blue link, which at present would make it only a single valid entry, and so a disambiguation is not required.

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:Chakla (disambiguation) 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 04:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue fixed. The second entries blue link Brothel#India now contains a sourced word chakla, and also in Prostitution in colonial India and Prostitution in India#History. There is a recently created pending redirect from Chakla (prostitution), Chakla (brothel) and Chakla (sex) to brothel. Please review. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your part added about Islam is not related to "sacred" prositution. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F109:F800:6442:AC9B:FC19:F9C6 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Reply: I will check later, meanwhile feel free to rephrase my edits and leave an explanation on the talk page of the article. You are being nice, keep it up.

Detailed reply: I made changes at 2 or 3 places. When I edit a topic, I cross link (pipelink) and cross edit (insert rephrased text in 2 or 3 similar articles, usually without copying large same text). I am not sure which article exactly you are referring to. Later, when I have time I will review my previous edits done to 3 or 4 articles related to "prostitution and religion" etc to find the exact article you are referring to. In the mean time, if you feel I have made any mistakes, I am not emotionally attached with my edits with ego, please feel free to incrementally rephrase appropriately and leave an explanation on the talk page of the relevant article.

Since you are nice enough to come here and ask me for an explanation in a cordial manner, you deserve my respect. This is the right way. Respect begets respect. Anyone who asks me, I always give them respect by giving a detailed explanation, usually with summary headings (twitter users on wikipedia do not like long replies). Please carry on editing with confidence. I am realising some editors do not respect IP (unregistered editors) sometimes, but that should not discourage you from editing or rephrasing (including my edits). Becoming a registered user has its downside too e.g. too many notifications, and fb is enough to ruin life with notifications, we do not need too many apps/notification. I feel you been sincere and that is good enough for me to pay you respect and trust your efforts.

Go ahead, make your changes to my edits, I will review later. If any correction is needed, I will do so with an explanation on the relevant talk page. Have a wonderful weekend. Stay nice to all people as you have been to me, this is very good.
Thank you. Regards.
202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay to revert my edit if you think I made mistake on this page. I made two posts there to help others asking for help. These were my first ever posts.
One was asking for help to seek more sources and I pointed them to google books for their specific topic, now I am checking that post and I might have mistakenly inserted my comment in the middle of his post (I am not sure by checking the log).
Second one was this, where I tried to help someone who was being honest. okay to revert if my response is wrong.
But the this reason you pipelinked for the revert was the instance of me trying to correct my own typo to fix the redlink to bluelink.
I think this might be an automated post on my wall and the real reason for the revert might be the first point I mentioned. I think, but I am not sure, I might have inadvertently inserted my comment in the middle of someone else comment and hence broke their comment. Anyway, I will leave a comment on your talk page to understand this issue better. Thanks for informing me. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 202.156.182.84, sorry for my mistake. I deleted the warning. Best regards --Serols (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, honest mistakes do happen. Stay happy. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Space Applications Centre, Hisar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Israeli Centre of Excellence for Animal Husbandary & Dairying, Hisar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology, Hisar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your time to review and approve. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per

I have created several articles before. I never had this problem before. Every time I create a draft, I do add category and proceed with the steps, submit, etc. And, I never received this advisory message before. Do you mean, I should not add categories at all, and add only after the article has been reviewed and approved? If so, I liked the earlier system (which worked fine for me until last week) where I can just add categories in the draft and would not receive this type of message. I really do not know what caused this message and more importantly how to avoid it, Please help me understand because I have few more work-in-progress drafts that I am about to submit. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the tone of my original message. Anyway, there are a few ways to avoid this with drafts. One way is to enclose the categories in a comment. Put

<!--

at the start of the comment, and

-->

at the end, like this:

<!-- Categories to be commented out for now:
[[Category:Example category]]
[[Category:Second example category]]
-->

Another way is to add a colon to the start of each category, like this:

[[:Category:Example category]]
[[:Category:Second example category]]

This will add a link to the categories, but won't put the article in the categories:

Category:Example category

Category:Second example category

It takes a few more steps to remove each colon, so you may want to go with the first method.

Hope this helps, and let me know if this is unclear. Trivialist (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I figured out the cause of error. When I submit a draft, categories are automatically commented out by the bot. Seems while editing my draft I had over written the comment (copy paste the text), which deleted the commented-categories and some automated filter might have flagged this as a problem. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://www.rediff.com/news/report/cbi-questions-hooda-in-panchkula-land-allotment-scam/20170508.htm.

closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here

.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Panchkula-HUDA Industrial plots allotment scam may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS ^message 16:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have originally sourced the cited text from the 1. India Times newspaper here, but you are pointing to me to 2. Rediff with the implication that my text is unsourced and might be copyvio of source-2. Both source-1 and soruce-2 have the same text, both are reporting the same story using the same syndicated news feed. My article is not unsourced and is not committing any copyvio. Seems the automated filter/bot is unable to discern that article is already sourced and there is no need (not possible either for me to find various online news portals who might have used the same syndicated story) to cite all the newspapers who have copied the same story from the syndicated feed. Anyway, just for this case, I am also inserting the source-2 (exact copy of my original source-1) pointed out by you and resubmitting my article. Now the article will have two citations, source-1 and source-2, both exactly the same. Please modify the bot/filter to avoid such false flags. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time and effort in reviewing and approving my draft article. Please review my other pending article submissions:

1. Draft talk:Ease of doing business ranking of states of India
2. Draft:Gurugram-Manesar IMT land scam
3. Draft:AJL-National Herald Panchkula land grab scam
4. Draft:Panchkula-HUDA Industrial plots allotment scam
5. Draft:Maharishi Balmiki Sanskrit University, Kaithal
6. Draft:Maharana Pratap Horticultural University, Karnal
7. Draft:Haryana Vishwakarma Skill University
8. Draft:Dayanand Brahm Mahavidyala, Hisar
9. Draft:Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board

Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rai, Sonipat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mundri, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Munak, Karnal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binola, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balsamand, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dudhola, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time in reviewing and approving. Please review my other pending articles awaiting approval. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Clarification, problem was already and immediately fixed by me long before the warning was issued 1. I made this edit-1 to

To be fair and to balance things out, I am also grateful to you for your effort and time you spent in reviewing several draft articles I had submitted. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you left this message in multiple places, I've replied to the content at User talk:1997kB. Let me add that the tone seems very condescending to me, particularly since 1997kB was entirely right and correctly pointed out the source of the copyright violation. Instead of offering advice on how they might need to manually check before they leave warnings (which they presumably did), you could yourself have compared the text you added to the source and thereby found out that it indeed was copy-pasted from a non-Wikipedia source. How would you feel if I now turned around and left you "kind" advice about your "well-intentioned learner's mistake" and told you to "learn some more" and not to antagonize honest and clean work of others? Huon (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying here. I also left on his talkpage and article talkpage, I was expecting reply here because I will miss out on it. About the tone, I want us all to collaborate nicely, I did not mean to be antagonising. Since you mentioned it, I will reply to him on his talkpage. I will go ahead and edit out my comment here and on his talkpage also. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2018 (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 Kvng 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 Ease of doing business index. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

It is not clear that a separate article on India's performance in this index is necessary.

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:Ease of doing business ranking of states of 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investing your time and effort to review. I am not emotionally attached to the idea if it should be merged or retained as a separate article. As long as it gets included, that is sufficient for me.

A. Merge will likely get reverted: For the following reasons I think it is still better to create it as a separate article, Merging my

Ease of doing business ranking of states of India article with the Ease of doing business index

will likely get these India-specific edits reverted.

1. The current ease of doing article for all nations has no nation specific sections. Adding nation specific details will make that article too lengthy.
2. I scrolled drown to the
   List of countries by economic freedom, Corruption Perceptions Index, and List of freedom indices
   . Convention for the list of all nations types articles seems to be to not include the country specific details.

For these reasons, I suggest to resubmit this article with no change. Let me know what do you think. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk)

Is there a reason you can't create an account and then create this article yourself? ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not having an account has its drawbacks (people treat registered users with more respect and perhaps some additional convenience, etc) and advantages (no/low addiction to wikipedia, less apps/accounts means more peace and time for other things in life, I get to drawn into only what I specifically want to revisit, every article gets reviewed by other editors which enhances their quality and survivability and I do take rejection messages on my talkpage positively to enhance my work, and so on). As for this article, I can resubmit this article with this explanation above. And the next reviewer can take the factors I mentioned in my first post into considerations. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good luck. ~Kvng (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help, time and effort. This was useful. I have posted the link to the above discussion on the talkpage of the article. This will help address and preempt these issues cropping up in future. Regards. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition of links to the article on the Battle of Broken Hill as these relate to modern events and political developments, and are therefore anachronistic in interpreting the incident of 1 January 1915. There was no consensus on describing the incident as a "terrorist attack" in the lengthy discussion on the article's talk page. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate. Thanks for explaining. Is that incident notable enough? Nonetheless, still an interesting piece of obscure history. I will re-read and suggest alternative edits. This was a crime with tones of religious intolerance/fervor/supremacist as it was a pre-planned attack, with no attempt to hide identity, with the flag, all the hallmark of conventional terror attacks. Now, some of the concepts I mentioned, those phrases have bene coined later but it does not mean those can not be applied to the older constructs, specially mere as "see also" and not as the main edit. For example, the term sanskritisation and indosphere were coined very recently to describe phenomenons that has been going on for over thousand years. I will re-read and re-do the edit, with an appropriate explanation on the talkpage. If I face cooked-up stiff resistance from the zealots then I will start questioning the notability of the article itself and ask for its deletion if the notability can not be ascertained. And will bargain to let it remain but after capturing the essence of my edits. Cheers. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the great edits!

deadwikipedian (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness and encouragement. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2018 (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 Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published,

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Sounds very local in nature

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:Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That interpretation is not true.

(a) This state board sells across India: As the current sources say, this is a state board with sales efforts across India.

(b) Google search results in english on the name of this article has 150,000 hits. I have not even included the search term in the native Hindi language.

(c)

Sikh people with turbans such as Canadian cabinet minsters namelyHarjit Sajjan, Navdeep Bains and even Amarjeet Sohi

.

(d) This one state alone is only 30% smaller than Canada: For the comparison, the population of the largest province in Canada, Quebec, is only 8 million. By your logic, shall we delete all the articles on Qubec, and then all other provinces of Canada as they are smaller and their topics are just too local?

(e) This state is larger than 75% nations of the world: This Haryana province/state is larger than Australia and 143 nations out of 195 nations.

(f) Well known within India: Its well known within the province/state as well as within India (point-a above), and India is a nation with world's 18% population with 1.3 billion people.

(g) My gratitude and your due diligence: I thank you for spending your time and effort in reviewing, but I also request you to please be more careful to conduct thorough due diligence prior to rejecting anyone's work.

(h) Conclusion - it is already notable and well known to large population and geography: Sources cited in the article have already captured the essence that this state board sells across India. Each state in India has its own board, just like each state also has its own school education board.

(i) I am resubmitting it with no change, though I might make more changes in future if I felt inclined. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made additional edits after the resubmission to enhance the notability further, just in case. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This post at Talk:Prehistory of Australia seems to be missing a word or more at the end of the sentence:

I find Johnbod's explanation.

Or perhaps what follows it should be the same sentence rather than a new one?

Please consider editing that post if necessary, so that it makes sense. It's much easier to have a meaningful discussion if we understand what you are trying to say. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reminder. That was the first cut, as I am still editing/improving my comment there to remove any rhetorics, etc. I will fix that unfinished ambiguous sentence too. About the topic, I think most editors are well-intentioned but some bias might be unintentional. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still editing/improving my comment there to remove any rhetorics — Your efforts to be

WP:REDACT. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Mitch Ames. I am also glad that we had resolution on Prehistory of Australia. I also left a detailed message on your talkpage. I also read the pipelinked articles you left above, it helped to deepen my understanding. Now, I understand better what you mean. I liked your terminology better than mine. Thanks for deepening the understanding. I request you to please watch Prehistory of Australia until the issue gets implemented and closed after a week. User Johnbod's reply was most helpful. It will be great if we can encourage him to make appropriate edit because I find his knowledge on this aspect better than mine (and other editors on the talkpage thus far). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just being kinder ... by giving a chance to the hope neo-reformed in the right spirit that they will not manipulating this goodfaith extended from me. I tied to be kinder, and I was civil and hard hitting before while counting on the conscience of the good people to initiate the discuss. I am glad that I was able to do so successfully, so I rephrased it to tone it down to be inclusivist of neo-reformed hetherto racists to make them feel they own the new kinder pro-aborigines non-racist mission. I took note of your pipelinks. Good to learn this.

I agree it is ethical. I will abide by it if I am in contentious situation. Laws, rules are for situations where people fail, we fail to reason and bond and arrive at consensus. Throwing rules at each other are is a means of shutting each other up. You notice, I purposefully do not pipelink to wikipedia guidelines, because it usually stops newer people, I feel it is just a ploy. When you pipelinked it specifically, to the specific para, that was ethical, I liked it. Very good. Now, do not harp on it because it is one of many guidelines. Please pay deep attention "every guideline has equal and opposite guideline". Do not do it to me. Do not do it to others. Please do not do it to those who do not know how to use this as a trick. Stop any one using this as a trick.

Wikipedia guidelines are to be used as goodfaith pure hearted guidelines when reason fails, talk without these. When all fails then use guidelines. Even then contrasting guidelines. So still a stalemate and bitterness and nonsense. Learning to use the guidelines is good, but to not to silence any one. Do it to teach others and guard yourself from misusing it. most people, i come across hey misuse it to they feel who cant not understand it. you please champion it, to counter that hegemony. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and effort for the review of multiple article submissions by me. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your acceptance and effort. Regards. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Village accountant has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I added a list of definitions largely from a single source. What do yous suggest is the best way. Shall I reinsert those definitions after sourcing those from several other sources (e.g. no more than say 4 or 5 definitions per source)? Will that fix the issue? 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2018 (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 Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published,

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Is this a degree granting university? Seems to be part of a larger school were this info would be better placed.

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:Dayanand Brahm Mahavidyala, Hisar 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an autonomous institute and not might not be under any university. I will research more details. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) might be comparable to this article. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2018 (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 Chetsford was:

WP:NOTNEWS

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:Panchkula-HUDA Industrial plots allotment scam 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. You cited the NOTNEWS as a reason for the decline. Please specify which one of the four subsections of NOTNEWS (1. Original reporting, 2. News reports enduring notability, 3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be, 4. A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are) are the applicable cause in this case?

I find your review and reasons for rejection objectionable, mainly because my other articles on the "related" and "similar scams" by the "similar/same bunch of people have been approved by the several other editors, see my talkpage above for approval of these articles
1.

Garhi Sampla Uddar Gagan land scam,
8. Manesar land scam

.
Are you using an entirely different criteria for the review and rejection as compared to the majority of other reviewers-editors? If so, then your review becomes uinacceptable for being out of line with the criteria used by the majority of the reviewers. Please ensure you use the review criteria consistent with the majority of the editors so as to not discourage creation of articles and stifle the growth of wikipedia. Take extreme caution in "rejecting" anyone's work. Thanks.

You may want to re-review and reconsider your decision to reject and go ahead to approve it.

If I do not hear from you in couple of days, then I will resubmit this article without change with the explanation above. If there is any further valid "specific and actionable" feedback (specific enough for me to identify which one of the point you used to reject) from you then I will try to remedy it (provided your objection is inline with the majority of other reviewers criteria) before resubmission. Thanks for your time.

202.156.182.84 (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sultan Singh Chauhan, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sangat Singh Chauhan, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

Hi, please be specific. Which articles did you mean? And, why is it irrelevant? Without the specific information this message is useless as I can not inspect, discuss, challenge, verify the validity of your observation, agree/disagree and/or take action. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping or mention an editor when you are chatting with them, otherwise they do not know that you replied. Now coming to the question you have raised, I will provide one example but this is a prevalent issue with your edits (which has been raised by other editors as well). Here is the example is Indian Navy where you added a huge number of articles in the See Also section per this edit ([1]). All the items under the "Other relevant topics" are not related to that page and should not be there and were subsequently removed. This seems to be a pattern across multiple other pages and has continued till now. Please be careful with your editing. If you are unsure of something then open a discussion on the talk page. Currently your edits/reverts are the border of being disruptive. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamgerber80, you are repeatedly subjective. You must use more goodfaith, treat all editors with more respect including IPs by making attempt to collaborate and not repeatedly disrupt. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have treated your edits with good faith. But I directing you to a guideline which are you clearly violating. Please familiarize yourself with some of these guidelines and this a community project where work with consensus. Your current comments on my talk page and in the edit indicate that you might

WP:OWN issues. Please be careful. (Also, that is NOT how you mention or ping an editor). Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have not violated any guideline, do not engage in "wiki lawyering on false and unsustainable pretext after being disruptive. I note that multiple other antagonised editors have recently left warnings on your talkpage above. Please do not make it a bad habit to uneedlessly get into the avoidable edit wars. Please use a collaborative (rephrase, edits, enhance but not disrupt). it will be good for wiki (more content, ebtter content, more productive, less waste of time, less negativity). Please change the attitude. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Sandipani Rashtriya Ved Vidya Pratishthan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2018 (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 Legacypac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published,

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3:, this is good to have this mechanism in place. Engage with me only on the issues you are involved with. I am not comfortable with being regularly stalking across wikipedia, unwanted third parties may end up aggravating the resolvable issues between two parties. Please read my message on your talkpage regarding this. I will explain the specific to you later there when I have more time, so that you can action/fix/discuss those one by one. I am keen to collaborate, but only the right way with the mutual reciprocity. We will reboot with open mind but please address my specific concerns on your talkpage, once I list those there one by one. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2018 (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 HighKing was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help

). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability according to

WP:NCORP

.

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:Indus College of Nursing, Khanda Kheri 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
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HighKing⁺⁺ 13:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, 202.156.182.84. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 202.156.182.84. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Snowycats (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]