User talk:S05081987

January 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lily Chakraborty with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dan653 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 16:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Satabdi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on

deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion

. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

here. Rob (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Lily Chakraborty

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lily Chakraborty, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://dbpedia.org/resource/Lily_Chakraborty.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not

talk) 12:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Reliable sources

Please stop adding

reliable secondary sources (sources such as newspapers that have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking). The websites you keep adding do not meet the criteria.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

what constitutes a reliable source and stop adding link spam to the article. It does not make the subject appear more notable by pasting the results of a google search into the external links section--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If you continue to add spam links to articles without regard to the applicability of the links, you will be blocked from editing.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to

talk) 00:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for the continued addition of inappropriate and extensive external links contrary to spam and external linking guidelines as well as your subsequent vandalism. 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. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]