User talk:UserABCXYZ

User:UserABCXYZ/talkpage

Often, new editors focus all their efforts on creating an article. This is referred to as "single purpose editing" (SPE). It does not mean that they have a personal connection, i.e., a conflict of interest or are paid to create or amend an article. David notMD (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:David notMD I want to I have write about a very sensitive case see Draft:Kawardha Voilence so I am fearing about to publish that page so can you remove all attacking words which is wrong and please note this that this is one of the most sensitive case in India and this is an national event so please review that page UserABCXYZ (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Reviewer of drafts submitted to Articles for Creation, nor knowledgeable about politics of India. I did a bit of copyediting. My opinion is that this may not meet Wikipedia's concept of notability, as it is basically a news item about a recent, local event. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:David notMD By mistake I didn't search about that article on google when I search about that article today I saw there is an article already you can see 2021 Kawardha riots and I want to say that see that page the topic is a national news UserABCXYZ (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes to the existing article because the content was much better than what you changed it to. I suggest you leave the existing content, but consider adding references if you feel that the references you created are important to readers understanding the event. David notMD (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:FactTechz. Thanks! bonadea contributions talk 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bonadea Delete that page and I want suggestion for this page Draft:Anup Ranjan Pandey can do describe me that he is notable or not UserABCXYZ (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (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 Nearlyevil665 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Anup Ranjan Pandey 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 Draft:Anup Ranjan Pandey, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

nearlyevil665 17:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UserABCXYZ! Having an article 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! nearlyevil665 17:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UserABCXYZ! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Prmotional Words, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UserABCXYZ! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wrong Move, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ost316. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Hingoli. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your intentions appear to be to copyedit the article, but you should not move an established page out of article space (essentially blanking the page) to do so. You can make a copy of it in draftspace or userspace while editing it, but the existing page should be kept so that the pages linking to it will still receive content while you are making your changes. Ost (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ost316 I do that because the page want an expert from India and I am a wikipedia expert so I move that draft and resolved all issue but by mistake I don't know how to delete page so I blanked it so sorry UserABCXYZ (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While your intentions were good, your implementation was no appropriate; pages should not be moved to Draftspace to update them. An administrator has now restored the article to its original page. However, I also see that you removed a lot of content with no WP:edit summary to explain why you removed it. Some of the information was backed up by references and others were standard Wikipedia templates; if possible, I'd suggest leaving or updated the referenced material rather than turning the page into a WP:STUB —Ost (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Baba Yogendra, is not suitable as written to remain published. It is partly incomprehensible, and some of the references are not correctly cited. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Please do not move the draft into mainspace yourself. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UserABCXYZ! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Paid Editor, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UserABCXYZ! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, New Article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Harshvardhan Navathe, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Gagan Kang, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UserABCXYZ, your enthusiasm is appreciated, but creating a large number of ultra-short stub articles with almost no information is not very helpful. In addition, many of your articles are about living or recently dead people, which means that the requirements for sourcing is especially high.

Please do not create articles that contain almost no information. Until you have shown a stronger command of the relevant policies, it would be better if you submitted your drafts for review, instead of moving them to mainspace yourself. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 18:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok So From which place I can know which article I have to create or not UserABCXYZ (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean – you do not have to create any articles (nobody has to create an article!) The problem is that you create a large number of ultra-short stub articles with almost no information. You posted the above yesterday evening; today you have created four of these very short stubs, in less than an hour. Your method of creating these is to create the article as a draft and then immediately move it to mainspace yourself. I have moved three of today's creations, Tilak Gitai, Laishram Birendrakumar Singh and Keshav Rao Musalgaonkar, back to draftspace. Sribhas Chandra Supakar should probably also be re-draftified.

The fact that your articles are too short is only one of the problems. There is an abundance of weak sources, mostly saying the exact same thing, instead of a reasonable number of reliable sources. Some sources don't even work. There are no categories (other people have occasionally added categories to articles you have created). The English often contains errors – though that is actually the least of the issues, because it's the kind of thing that other editors can easily assist with, as long as it is possible to understand the text.

Instead of moving your drafts to mainspace yourself, please submit them for review instead, when you believe that they are ready to become articles. It is a little concerning that you created your account less than ten days ago, requested "confirmed" status the next day, and then requested it again saying "to complete 4 days only some hours are left so I can't wait for some hours so please make me a confirmed user". Why were you in such a hurry to be confirmed? And what is the reason for your many very rapid article creations? --bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reason was to become confirmed was I am very new in wikipedia so I want to see functions of confirmed users and I create many articles to become active user in wikipedia UserABCXYZ (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UserABCXYZ! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Draft:Anup Ranjan Pandey, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UserABCXYZ! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Account Creator, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited H. R. Shah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Tilak Gitai, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Keshav Rao Musalgaonkar, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 13:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Laishram Birendrakumar Singh, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bhoot Raja Aur Ronnie, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 20:13, 27 October 2021 (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 Idoghor Melody was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Kohinoor Square 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 Draft:Kohinoor Square, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2021 (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 Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Tilak Gitai 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 Draft:Tilak Gitai, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2021 (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 Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Gagan Kang 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 Draft:Gagan Kang, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2021 (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 Akevsharma was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Keshav Rao Musalgaonkar 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 Draft:Keshav Rao Musalgaonkar, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Akevsharma (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2021 (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 Akevsharma was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Laishram Birendrakumar Singh 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 Draft:Laishram Birendrakumar Singh, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Akevsharma (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A biography of a living person has particularly high requirements for sourcing, and a stub article with no information is not helpful to our readers. You were given pretty specific feedback on what this article needs, but since you ignored that, it needs to go back to draftspace until it meets at least the minimum requirements. bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating well-sourced articles about historical figures that have been around for 17 years is a bad look for an account that has existed on Wikipedia for less than two weeks. Please slow down. And if there's any sign that you're nominating things for deletion out of retaliation, your Wikipedia editing career will be cut short. Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:BEFORE. There is no requirement for an actor to have an IMDB page nor for a Wikipedia page to link to it, but it is the nominating editor's responsibility to search for sources before nominating an article for deletion (especially when providing a claim that a subject is a hoax). —Ost (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Blablubbs (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Thank you for creating Manu Sharma (writer) . When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie Manu Sharma), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find the new article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 08:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UserABCXYZ, why are you refusing to submit your drafts for review? Despite multiple cautions, informational notices, and warnings, you keep creating articles by writing a minimal draft and immediately moving it to mainspace. Take Jaideep Bose: you included four sources, three of which were in fact the same source. The two actual sources are press releases. It is a BLP, it has high requirements for sourcing, as I and other people have said repeatedly. Or take Jyotipunj, which had sources such as this and the book itself, and which contains less information about the book than what the biographical article about Modi already had. There aren't any sources to show the book is independently notable, so I redirected it to Narendra Modi. You also created Angle-Closure Glaucoma a couple of days ago – that is a medical topic, which has even stricter requirements on sourcing than biographies. Again, that article included less information about angle-closure glaucoma than does Glaucoma, and some of the info was not even correct (according to the sources you added, the list of symptoms was not "all symptoms", but some of them).

Please use the AfC process until you find that the drafts you submit are accepted more often than not. --bonadea contributions talk 21:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Books about presidents of India indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UserABCXYZ! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Mistake, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jaideep Bose, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – robertsky (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you moved Queen Elizabeth 2 to "Queen Elizabeth 2 (ship)", and then made "Queen Elizabeth 2" redirect to Elizabeth II, you created a situation where more than 450 Wikipedia articles had links intended to point to the ship, which suddenly pointed to the person, but you did not change any of them. That's just as well, in a way, since the move was not a good idea: the monarch's name is not "Queen Elizabeth 2", but that is what the ship is called. If you have reasons to assume that many people who are looking for the article about the person end up on the article about the ship because they search for "Queen Elizabeth 2", you can start a move discussion: follow the instructions at WP:RSPM, and open a discussion at Talk:Queen Elizabeth 2. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Sunder Singh Lyallpuri for deletion as "non-notable" indicates a profound misunderstanding of notability and inclusion criteria. It's a very poorly written article, full of promotion, but there is no question of notability. AfD is not a tool to clean up bad articles. I get the strong impression that you created the AfD in retaliation, which I explicitly told you not to do. Your page move is equally problematic. If this behavior or anything like it recurs after this block is over, you may be indefinitely blocked for failure to exhibit the necessary competence to edit Wikipedia productively. Far too much volunteer time is being wasted cleaning up after you. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am blocked because I nominated a page for deletion but nominated right page because that I can't find sources in google and the sources which are listed in that page are book sources so when I find that book in Google Books I found nothing which means references of that page are not real And I am unable to find sources in Google which means that person is not notable and in last if you are declining my request so I want to say that unblock me now and after that I will never nominate any page UserABCXYZ (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In your short time here you have managed to create an inordinate amount of extra work for other editors and admins. You have been asked to slow down but steam ahead regardless. I think this break is needed as a circuit breaker; you need to read through all of the links and advice posted on this page so that when you return you can be a more productive editor. Note that making a small handful of policy-based, well-thought-out edits is much preferable to an abundance of poor edits. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 5 November 2021 (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.

A few things: 1) Sources don't have to be online, especially for subjects that are older, some of the areas I normally edit in involve me having to read sources from the early 20th century which haven't been scanned online. 2) notability is not always tied in with amount of sources, some specific areas have criteria for notability, 3) the article made a claim to notability: "a leading Sikh member of the Indian independence movement, a general of the Akali Movement, an educationist, and journalist. Lyallpuri played a key role in the development of the Shiromani Akali Dal, and in the Gurdwara Reform Movement of the early 1920s and also founding member of Central Sikh League." Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

yesJezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the significant technical overlap with various User:HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA "TARA" socks, including a logged-out edit where you openly admit socking, there is your creation of this impersonation account. The technical overlap, along with this deleted history, make it obvious you're a returning sock. Blocked and tagged accordingly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 5 November 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Block me for 10 days but tell me reason of blocking me for indefinitely UserABCXYZ (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2021 (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 want to say that I helped other users to delete that page and I don't know who is that user in last I want to say that who can give me justice UserABCXYZ (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WhiteHat Jr 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/WhiteHat Jr (2nd 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.

MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]