User talk:Pharaoh496

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to India at the Cricket World Cup. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make edits with misleading or inaccurate edit summaries, even if unintentional, as you did at India at the Cricket World Cup, you may be blocked from editing. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

2023 Cricket World Cup background 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/2023 Cricket World Cup background until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a template is to provide links to relevant articles that exist. There is 0 benefit to adding the years for articles that won't be created for 4 or 8 years (like 2027 WC Final) onto {{Cricket World Cup}}, please only add to this if it's for links to articles that exist (or are likely to be created in the near future) and are relevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 Cricket World Cup 1st semi-final 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/2023 Cricket World Cup 1st semi-final until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Please do not re-add content without references. Find the references and/or add context to tables without any per the long-standing agreement at the cricket wiki project. It's not OK to have content which is just lists of data without any form of referencing. You've been warned about this above by others. Stop it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yo then just add issue comments to add references if something does not have references does not mean it needs to be removed. Things which you have removed were there for a long time, are true and can be easily be referenced. You removed 13k pixels worth of content without a discussion on it Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're finding it difficult to find references for the large table of individual awards. That's the easy one to find - although the table probably doesn't belong on this page. Just because something has been there or is there somewhere else it doesn't mean that it has any value whatsoever - we have far too many editors who want to add statistical tables and can't be bothered to either source the trivia they're adding or write any context whatsoever to support it. So we end up with articles, like the one in question, which were once Featured Articles but were delisted. Good luck with getting that FA status back again if you insist on a tonne of trivia Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cricket diplomacy into Cross-Strait relations. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have violated

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).

Pharaoh496 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand the ban, im just *askng*, not debating, just asking whether we can have seperate accounts after the ban ends. I genuinely do have a brother, though I understand why wikipedia may not think so, hence ill stay the ban, would just like to know what to do next. Also it would be great if the ban was shortened, though I understand it. Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are

banned, the two terms have different meanings here. If the other account is operated by a different person, they should request unblocking and convince an admin that they are a completely different person from you. For your block to be removed early, you will need to do the same- please read the policies indicated if you haven't already. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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

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

Pharaoh496 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Im back from exams so sorry for not getting back; I understand the difference in banned and blocked now. I have stayed away from editing and do want to get back into it, and will make sure the ip is different as well as not commit other violations. The other account wont be used as Im not sure how I can prove it was not me; unless theres another way. If there isnt, it wont be used and will be deleted by us. Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedurally closing this unblock request as the block has now expired (and you have resumed editing). Please take the advice given above into consideration going forward. DanCherek (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Thanks for your contributions to 2000 ICC KnockOut Trophy Final. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.

The article 75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Afghan cricket team in India in 2023–24, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Talk:Example page/Archive 1 Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Asia Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ODI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite in favor of this delete, as I find any sort of reactionary snub talk to be trivial. I tolerated it because it received significant press coverage and sourcing. In doing so, I maintained a firm hand in preventing excessive edits, such as reactions from irrelevant people (Hillary Clinton and others) who have zero connection to 2023 films.

Anyway, the reason I came to chat here with you was to get your feedback on the previous year's page. There's a section for "Andrea Riseborough's 'controversial' nomination", which irks me terribly. I find it disrespectful on one hand, as it is similar in subjective implications; accusations of unfairness, blah blah. ((Blaming her alone for the snubs of Danielle Deadwyler for Till and/or Viola Davis for The Woman King, as if Ana de Armas for Blonde (in spite of the movie being a reviled and a Razzie-nominee or winner) or Michelle Williams (going lead instead of supporting) aren't equally culpable—Or as I always say, don't blame them, just blame the Academy. They didn't rank the others high enough.))

But also, it sets a bad precedent. I figured, if the Barbie section is deleted, would you consider it fair and justified to delete that section under the same circumstances? What do you think? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh absolutely! The barbie thing straight up pissed me off, id be in favour to delete that section too, though im not familiar. If what you say is true, id support it as well Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for the vote of confidence, haha. Okay, so it would be a worthwhile deletion. Not sure if I could suggest an alternate place to post it, as you did with the Barbenheimer page to soften the blow. But that's not required. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Pharaoh496 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pharaoh496: Hi, I'm Birdienest81. I'd like to introduce myself as an editor who has edited several Oscar ceremony pages and helped them get promoted to featured list . I would like to say thank you for removing the so-called Barbie "snub". Sure, it got lots of media coverage right off the bat after the nominations were announced three weeks ago, but I was worried that this would set up a dangerous precedent for how both past and future Oscar ceremonies would be covered given that there are always snubs and that "snub" is highly subjective depending on the reader. Don't even get me started on the Brokeback Mountain, Saving Private Ryan, or Roma snubs. If we did that for almost every Oscar ceremony, this would violate I think Wikipdia's standards for a neutral point of view and objectivity. So, once again I thank you for your boldness to nip this in the bud.

Now about the Andrea Risenborough "controversy", I'm leaning toward removing it as well. However, when I submitted the 95th Oscars ceremony for featured list promotion, RunningTiger123 suggested about keeping it since there was a lot of news coverage about it. So, I decided to leave it as is with a few tweaks. I think the reason we decided to keep it was that the controversy resulted in rule changes in Oscar campaigning rules similar to how the #OscarsSoWhite controversy forced membership admission changes. That's is quite different than say Barbie being snubbed which is on par with Brokeback Mountain failing to win Best Picture and similar omissions. I'd like to get feedback from RunningTiger123, Cowlibob, and SNUGGUMS since they have advised me on several Oscar ceremonies into FL status. Because I feel that moving forward, there has to be a line drawn between objectivity and opinion.

--Birdienest81talk 08:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining in the discussion, Birdie! That's precisely what gave me pause regarding Andrea's section. I was about to swipe it away when I scrutinized it more meticulously, and realized it had nothing to do with bitterness about the unfortunate omissions of Deadwyler or Davis (which as we all agree opens Pandora's Box to a dangerous precedent).

As I think I mentioned somewhere, before KeybladeMaster's sockpuppet was blocked, that person set-up the section if I recall correctly, and then kept trying to include various celebrity statements. It's one thing from Ryan Gosling, nominated for the film. But Hillary Clinton?! Useless Instagram Lack-of-Influencer #43? LOLNO, stop. Nobody connected with the film or nominated from it have any business infiltrating this article. I'm glad we're all taking a firm stance on this so that I know for future reference.

But I digress. Point is, as you stated, the section dealt much more with the rule changes. Perhaps though we all can compromise by toning down the section? How much of it is truly fact versus speculation, hearsay, and conspiracy theories? So I'm interested to see what the discussion conjures. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 12:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81@Cinemaniac86@SNUGGUMS

Some guy got it back lol. I re-removed it, and told him to come here. Lets stick to this discussion. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay yi yi. Bound to occur eventually though. Good way to handle it though.----Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 16:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints about "snubs" are inherently subjective and certainly too trivial to mention. Removing them is for the best. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amen Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now we are just dumping this trivial mess to the Barbie page? It would be probably be best to first userfy and rewrite it to be encyclopedia ready. Mike Allen 16:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that to the movie article would also be a bad idea for the same rationale I gave above. No amount of rewriting could make such complaints worth mentioning. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(commenting now because I was busy during the original ping) The discussion around Barbie's snubs gained a fair amount of coverage (both in the industry press and more mainstream media), and there is some precedent for mentioning snubs. Brokeback Mountain is the most obvious example, but I've added similar lines in some FLs I worked on – see the awards lists for The Wire or The Office for examples. But I think we can cut the section way down; a sentence or two should suffice, and the quotes/specific reactions aren't really important. Maybe something like: Gerwig and Robbie's lack of nominations for Best Director and Best Actress, respectively, were considered snubs by some fellow actors, critics, and journalists (add refs), though those criticisms sparked their own backlash (add refs). RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was thinking as well. Originally, this is practically all it was. That very first paragraph. It was pared down. When first introduced, it was worded in a sensationalist manner, but all it takes as stated above is plainly wording it. These are the people; they didn't get nominated. Plus Gosling's reaction was mentioned, which was prominently featured throughout most articles referring to the "snubs" that day. (Although his quote isn't necessary either; just stating what was. I think it may have been quoted in full, but I might have removed it, and left it at just "Best Supporting Actor nominee Ryan Gosling expressed his disappointment in a statement"? It's been a while; too lazy to check.)

Gradually, excess reactions from Whoopi, Clinton, and several other useless tidbits were included. They were then removed, except Whoopi just to provide a counterpoint at the time. Again, this isn't necessary either.

What might be worth emphasizing is that despite being snubbed for Director/Actress, Gerwig was still nominated for Screenplay and Robbie as a producer. I think those aspects tie into the counter-backlash stemming from the "snub" fervor. What RunningTiger123 wrote is perfect, with this in addition. How about (something like):

Gerwig's and Robbie's lack of nominations for Best Director and Best Actress, respectively, were considered snubs by several fellow actors, critics, and journalists (add refs), although those criticisms sparked their own backlash (add refs). Several of those from the latter highlighted the fact that Gerwig and Robbie nevertheless each earned an Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture (as producer), respectively.(cite refs) --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 01:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to single out any single reason for the counter-backlash, since the sources currently used seem to cover a lot: awards are subjective, the races are competitive, the film and other women still got a lot of noms (relative to the past), ... . The article that seemed to get the most buzz (obviously this could be biased based on what I read) was the NY Times opinion piece arguing "Barbie Is Bad" (see also this current reference), which is completely separate from Gerwig and Robbie getting nominations elsewhere. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't single that out as a reason then. I'll reword it, so it'll be a fact-based mention. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 02:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kapil Dev you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Kapil Dev for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had to fail two of your cricket GANs because they were a long way from being ready. I respect your enthusiasm for nominating articles, but please make sure any future nominations actually meet the

• Make that three, as I have just failed Second Test, 2000–01 Border–Gavaskar Trophy. 75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event also has multiple unsourced paragraphs. I recommend you withdraw it, fix that, and then renominate, as it is in no state to pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for taking the time to review my nominations. I am not that experienced of an editor yet, however will look to definitely improve on the suggestions. Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would strongly recommend removing the GAN template from 75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event, as it is in no state to pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey. I have worked on the 75 page, and I would request you to take a friendly look at it to see if it has improved. I have added more sources, and would love opinions before renominating Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey @Premeditated Chaos Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's still a bunch of unsourced content. How are you not understanding that that's a problem? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi. I have tried to add all possible sources. Could you please help in identifying the particular sections which can do with more? Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you could begin the review and then advise, and I could correct there? I know a lot of the other things are fixed from the previous review. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Second Test, 2007–08 Border–Gavaskar Trophy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Second Test, 2000–01 Border–Gavaskar Trophy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Second Test, 2000–01 Border–Gavaskar Trophy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Navjot Singh Sidhu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your edit on Lakshadweep, your current wording talks about the row that erupted which is simply news and not does not talk about what was the impact. If you want to add regarding the row post the visit of the PM, please mention the impact on Lakshadweep as that might be relevant to the subject (say if any infrastructure have been sanctioned, increase in tourist numbers etc.). Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2024 India–Maldives diplomatic row. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, Have you even seen the message I left at the talk page of the article? Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2024 India–Maldives diplomatic row. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 20:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event 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/75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2023 Asia Cup you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2023 Asia Cup for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joseph2302 -- Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Delhi Capitals in 2023. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yusuf Pathan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2024 (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 DoubleGrazing was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Article wizard/Redirects. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Deji and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pharaoh496! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]