User talk:AchaksurvisayaUdvejin

Reference has already been provided as school website and school newsletter. Hope, you would have found that. I added reference after your recommendation. Thanks😊 AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added reliable source. See to it if you are not myopic. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Kailash Vijayvargiya‎ has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without 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. Biwom (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	keep it up.....your work is at effulgence. Indianguy123456789 (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	your work is appreciable Indianguy123456789 (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

eat it Indianguy123456789 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	nice work.....i appreciate you.india appreciates you Indianguy123456789 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, 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 TalkContribs 10:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply ]

March 2016

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Bakshir, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not pretend to be a Wikipedia administrator. Jevansen (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AchaksurvisayaUdvejin. It has been over six months since you last edited your

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Omni Flames (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm David.moreno72. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Black hole information paradox, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. David.moreno72 08:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David.moreno72: I don't understand your claim that no sources were provided. Plenty of sources were provided. On the other hand, this material has been introduced and removed several times. So, AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, I recommend that rather than trying to re-introduce the material to the article, you bring up the matter at the talk page. That is how disputes get solved around here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Members of any national or state legislature are always notable -- see

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KGirlTrucker81 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

IMDB is not an reilable source.

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:Nandan Jha 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.

KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 14:57, 23 October 2016 (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 Sandgem Addict was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in

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:

Currently the sole reference is one produced by Oxford University relating Dr Sarkar. In order for notability to be established, we require

sources published by a third party

to also be used as references. Please find additional sources that meet the requirements linked to above to verify Dr Sarkar's notability, then resubmit.

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:Subir Sarkar 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.

sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 06:15, 1 November 2016 (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 Gbawden was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in

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:Nandan Jha 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.

Gbawden (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to National Indian Students Union UK, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

Hello, AchaksurvisayaUdvejin. It has been over six months since you last edited your

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 19:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AchaksurvisayaUdvejin. It has been over six months since you last edited your

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 16:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AchaksurvisayaUdvejin. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article draws an attention for a published scientist and hence credible. I believe that page should be restored. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Parth Samthaan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: language not completely promotional, definitely claims significance. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 11:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I declined it twice now, please be aware that any further attempts to get an admin to speedy delete this page will be considered

WP:AFD and make your case there. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, you may be blocked from editing. This is w.r.t to the edit summary at this edit.
• Also, consider that you are hereby warned from casting random aspersions via edit-summaries and that such activities are in fundamental violation of our
  fourth pillar
  .
• Furthermore, please refrain from tagging any articles unless you've read the new
  non-criteria.Thank you!Winged Blades^Godric 15:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm going to second this as an uninvolved admin. Please remember that edit summaries also need to conform to the civility/BLP/etc guidelines. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AchaksurvisayaUdvejin. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Rannvijay Singha, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Fails A7 by a mile.Meh about G11. Thank you. Winged Blades^Godric 15:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maya Vishwakarma is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Vishwakarma until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 05:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ujjawal Krishnam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujjawal Krishnam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful of

Please stop harassing editors, both on the AFD page and at their talk pages. Stop trying to influence the discussion. If you continue you will end up being blocked. GiantSnowman 08:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is the thing to be influenced by an intellectual discourse and not by unwilling to understand the context and criteria as I explained. I nowhere harassed any editor, I repeat! I contacted Mr Wales and he would be looking into matter. You please don't take it personally or so, I am just present on discussion and putting my thoughts. If you found anything offensive, I regret and express sorry for the harm I never caused. Fine, if you say so, I will not contact any editor. Feel happy. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppositely, will you stop harassing me or should I take some legal steps? Why don't you clearly say that you are not in favour of saving the page even I have justified it as per all notability criteria? If asking questions is harassment, then please allow me to read jurisprudence all again. I am baffled. You please avoid invalid argument, I am not a random account holder who is doing some creep activity, these are all polices led by Wikipedia which I am using. If you have a problem, please mention it to me, I will try to take it in consideration. Thank you. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

With regards to your recent post on my talk page - please don't go around asking users to join an AfD while suggesting your viewpoint or how they should participate.

AfDs only ever have a few participants on them - it would be easy for either side to find 10 people who looked like they would support them and bring them in to "win", but that would defeat the whole purpose. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was for opinions and not for voting because augmentation and clear consensus leads to deletion not voting and present situation doesn't support so that even you know. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GiantSnowman 09:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Someguy1221 (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

It was judgemental aggression which led me to warn the admin, if he is affected, I apologize and request to be unblocked. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

 Confirmed to each other:

• Volume345 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I've fixed your request. I will not review it as I was involved in the ANI discussion, but you will need to clearly retract your legal threats in order to be unblocked. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand, I deeply regret and I am extremely sorry. I retract the sayings. I request admin to please understand the grievance. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your
  bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujjawal Krishnam is also an issue. If you are unblocked, are you going to change your behavior when discussing deletion of articles? If so, how? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I will try to control the outburst but one thing to be noted, i.e. WP:COI is not a criteria to be judged with. Second, I made clear comments about canvassing that I was not indulged in so. The situations have turned against my page, still I believe page must be there. I will act calm. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin comment Good luck on that. My view is that your bullying and bombastic conduct excludes you from the ability to edit here constructively in any event. Just to further elevate the discussion, and this is important, please answer the following. The community expects users to resolve disputes in means other than going to the media or to "write up a public column" or taking legal action or calling the police. Please describe as thoroughly as you can what those alternatives are and how you would utilize them.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll now have to explain why you're using two accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just get off yokel, I don't find you as an authority. Even if you block me, that doesn't do any harm. Hahaaahahaha And about my page? Who knows about notability of the subject and just 18, within a few years someone else will make. just face some legal consequences.

Congratulations. Your continued bombast and the renewal of your legal threat have resulted in me removing talk page access. Not to mention utter non response to my request for you to tell us what other choices you would follow in a dispute. Please make further unblock requests via

WP:UTRS. You can also address your sockpuppetry. When you write your column, please be sure to spell my name right.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Sock account blocked at Commons for sockpuppetry there.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstars are intriguing, but probably stale-- Special:Contributions/Indianguy123456789.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pity. Could have been a good editor if not for legal threats and sockpuppetry.:(--Biografer (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]