User talk:Nkapoor21

I really don't think the editing is right! As why should one only mention qubool hai when the person in question has done so much other work? I think qubool hai should be deleted! or more work should be listed! Plus the references are wrong also, as one refrence refers to dill mill gayye

Hello, I'm Katieh5584. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Karan Singh Grover, 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. Katieh5584 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Karan Singh Grover. 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. Katieh5584 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep attempting to add a piece where Grover states that he was the winner. He is not a

called edit warring and will result in you being blocked from editing or suggesting edits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Karan Singh Grover with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Katieh5584 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Karan Singh Grover, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Again, Grover's statement is not an acceptable source for claiming that Grover won a prize as you have attempted to reinsert with this edit [1] . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Karan Singh Grover. Katieh5584 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Karan Singh Grover shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 Hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the
  introduction
  .
• The following is the log entry regarding this message:
  talk) 14:38, 30 March 2014 (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 ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Jennifer Winget. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Her birthdate is not acceptable. DMacks (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing others' comments from a talkpage is against

WP:TPO. You might want to take some time to read and follow the policies and guidelines that everyone keeps noting. Otherwise you will surely lose your edit privileges altogether. DMacks (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The article Star Holi Masti Gulal Ki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable ...telecast of...something.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Perfect Couple Channel V has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable season(?) of program that doesn't have a page at all.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Star Holi Masti Gulal Ki 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/Star Holi Masti Gulal Ki 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. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Perfect Couple Channel V 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/Perfect Couple Channel V 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Karan_Singh_Grover shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Repeatedly removing sourced content without a valid explanation as you have been doing in edits like [2] is unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IS IT YOU WHO IS MAKING THESE UNNECESSARY CHANGES? How come the person who is also doing the edits will not get blocked and only me??

if you get blocked and someone else doesnt, it is because they are editing within policy and you are editing disruptively outside of policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Karan Singh Grover with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Katieh5584 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you need to use the template (using the double brackets) as indicated, otherwise the admins are not alerted to your request. You should probably also read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nkapoor21,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jyoti (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karan Singh Grover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm

There are lots of sources to fix the article. I added imdb and a source for her award. You can help too! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a good source, some information on the page has to go!

I am not doing any disruptive changes! The sources you have used are not valid!!

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Qubool Hai with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☻) 15:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nkapoor21, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

FireflySixtySeven (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nkapoor21, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

FireflySixtySeven (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nkapoor21, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

FireflySixtySeven (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pooja Sharma (Indian actress) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:NACTOR

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]