The

Adventure

Hi Neel.arunabh!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to The New Yorker Magazine, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of World Emoji Day, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://worldemojiday.com/.

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 public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neel.arunabh,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged World Emoji Day for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , 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. Trivialist (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neel.arunabh,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged World Emoji Day for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , 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. Trivialist (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with World Emoji Day. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JohnBlackburne. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Emoji without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neel.arunabh! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:59, Thursday, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neel.arunabh! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:01, Friday, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm FrB.TG. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Kareena Kapoor filmography because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Frankie _talk 12:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Caste system in India, you may be blocked from editing. You removed over 3000 bytes claiming that you were fixing a "cite error." If you do this kind of thing again, you will be sure to get blocked. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Caste system in India. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

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

Please use the talk page to raise issues. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neel.arunabh reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: ). Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Caste system in India. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be noted: You've also been edit warring at Deepika Padukone over the same theme of "fixing cite errors" and you have not addressed the questions posed by other editors in either article. —SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear Neel.arunabh, We have figured out the "cite errors" that you were trying to fix on the Caste system in India article, and fixed them. However, please note:
  • You can't remove the essential cross references in the articles just because there are some errors, and
  • You should explain the problems you are trying to correct on the article talk pages when your edits are reverted. See WP:BRD for the protocol to follow.

If you understand these two points and promise never to edit-war again, you can request for an unblock above. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neel, I am glad to see the keen interest you have in fixing cite errors. However, may I suggest that you don't try out the corrects on the live versions of the pages? You have a sandbox, where you can experiment. Please try out the corrections there, and install them on the main space after you have checked that they are correct. This will make sure that you don't run into problems like the last time, and it will be helpful for those of us that monitor the pages. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of I Love NY (Hindi film), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: I Love NY (2015 film). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix this. See my recent edit. Since the film is now released, the title I Love NY (2015 film) seems reasonable. Please contact me if you disagree, because a WP:Requested move can be opened to ask for a different title. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-and-paste moves are violations of the copyright policy, as they fail to fulfill the Creative Commons license requirements of attribution. If you should again revert in a copy-paste move as you did with this edit, you will be blocked from editing. If you believe the article should be moved to a different title, please submit a requested move. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I submit the requested move? Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions are at the linked page under "Potentially controversial moves." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Fire-water-sponge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:I Love NY (2015 film)‎. –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You've been repeatedly warned to pack it in and have yet you've continued, Remove someones comment again and you could end up blocked, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to disagree with the closure of a requested move for I Love NY (2015 film). You apparently tried to invoke the Wikipedia:Move review process, which is available to challenge such decisions, however your request was malformed so I discarded it. You are free to start this process if you feel that the decision to keep the current title has been made in error with regards to Wikipedia's article titling policy. However, given that the two title changes that you proposed were refused, there is little chance to obtain what you want in a move review. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that if you continue reverting edits you will violate 3RR and be subject to a block of at least 31 hours, or more, from editing privileges. Quis separabit? (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Reason (EP) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced unremarkable musical piece. No credible claim of significance.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Do not tell or try to dictate to other editors what they may and may not do in your edit summaries. If you have a problem or a question then you go to the editor's talk page and explain what the problem is. If you continue in this noxious and arrogant belief that you can do whatever you like on vandalize Wikipedia, then you are going to be sanctioned. Quis separabit? (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why you have now twice reverted The Sound of Music (film) to much earlier page states, wiping out significant edits and MOS corrections? You have provided no explanation and it looks like borderline vandalism. Please do not do it again without discussing the merits of your edit on the talk page first. Betty Logan (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the page appears in the category of incorrect reference formatting. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem with the formatting then fix the formatting. If you continue restoring the article to a much earlier state and wiping out intermediate edits I will request administrative sanctions against you. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing errors were caused by two sources no longer used in the article. Once they were removed the article stopped being added to the category. Please do not revert articles to much earlier states to address a simple category error. If you are incapable of fixing a reference error then leave it for somebody who knows what they are doing because your approach was destructive and wiped out a month's worth of improvements, some of which were in line with consensus and the MOS. If you have done this on other articles then I strongly urge you to reverse the damage you have caused. Also, use edit summaries in the future so editors know why you are doing something. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now same thing has happened in Exponential distribution. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your earlier block was for this exact same problem, and you've been warned multiple times since then. If this continues then you will be blocked again, and for a much longer duration. —SpacemanSpiff 04:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Reason (EP) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable ep with insufficient references

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. Jax 0677 (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't move articles to namespaces containing a disambiguator like "Mini-LP", as you did with My House (EP). This isn't a known form of disambiguation. My House is an EP, which are sometimes referred to as mini LPs, but this isn't what we should call it in an article title. Thank you. Ss112 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but which section of Wikipedia says that an article title should not be called "mini LP"? An album with 7 tracks is a mini LP. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to December 27, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 17:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at January 10. Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not unsourced material. Only added a person with an article born on this day. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the source for your edit to January 10. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably not aware but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. If you continue adding unsourced entries without providing a direct reliable source, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I add a citation needed tag. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neel.arunabh. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for information in a biography article, Matt Nathanson. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert my edits again at Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. Your addition of a non-notable person to that article is inappropriate, particularly within the introduction section. Write the person's article first, please. Also, wikipedia articles cannot themselves be used as sources. If I can help with anything, let me know. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move the page to this? I don't really see the point because James is more notable as TheOdd1sOut. You also did this without ever previously editing the article, so it's a bit out of the blue. Zoom (talk page) 15:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His name is James Rallison.Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, he is still more notable under the alias TheOdd1sOut. Zoom (talk page) 23:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have tried to add claims about the song sounding like Adele's "Someone Like You" three times, each with unreliable sourcing. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before making any further edits to that page. I don't care what you personally think the song sounds like - if there are no reliable sources backing your opinion up, you cannot add the claim into the article. Particularly in edits like these where you're insinuating the songwriters are plagiarists, which could be considered a WP:BLP violation. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why is soundsjustlike.com not a reliable source? See Some Nights (song). There also it has talked about the similarities with Simon & Garfunkel's "Cecilia" with soundsjustlike.com as a reference. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soundsjustlike.com is a website filled with user-generated content. Anybody can add content there. See WP:SPS. It shouldn't be used as a source in the Some Nights article either, or anywhere else. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given your edit summary here and the many messages on your talk page above, it is clear you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what constitutes a reliable source. Online databases that include user-generated content absolutely do not meet the criteria, especially when you are using them to override material published in reliable sources. Please ensure you review WP:RS and WP:BLP as continued BLP violations may lead to additional sanctions on your account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, what type of a website is "allmusic.com"? Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An online database.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also not that you are at WP:3RR on the article. As you've been blocked for edit-warring before I shouldn't have to remind you to get consensus for the changes you want to make.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Plane (song). Since you had some involvement with the Plane (song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Map (song). Since you had some involvement with the Map (song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Random award 2756b
	Thanks for adding Esha to events on November 2nd. We need to have more diverse women featured. She will be on Women in Red's banner tomorrow at #wikiwomeninred. Victuallers (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Dimes & Discourses, does not have enough content to remain as written. 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.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Sky Life, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, UCUM derived unit, does not have enough sources and citations 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.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just in general, be aware of WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION and try to avoid WP:SMALLCATs - a good category has 30-200 members, and those with only eg one like Category:UCUM derived units are likely to be upmerged. Also you should never create a new category without adding categories so that it hooks in to the main hierarchy. That's important, as it allows humans and maintenance bots to find it, categories are not simple metatags with no context. Le Deluge (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicating all of the SI categories and templates for UCUM is a bad project. UCUM is not a system of measurement like SI. It's a coding system for representing units from all systems. Creating templates listing UCUM units is a waste of time and space. What Wikipedia needs is one solid article on UCUM, plus a one-sentence comment in each unit article, stating how that unit is represented in UCUM. No categories. No templates. No need for more than one article.--Srleffler (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the paragraph at [1] which says "Like the SI system of units, our unit system is based on seven dimensions, with the units shown in ▶. However, some of our base units differ from the SI base units, because we focus on the everyday need to communicate units and to calculate with units. Conversely, the SI system is concerned with metrology, i.e., with specifying devices to reliably reproduce units with high accuracy." Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. I still think many (and possibly all) of the UCUM categories and templates are pointless and counterproductive. UCUM is designed to represent units in any (or almost any) unit system. There is no such thing as a "UCUM unit". It's just a unit. The units exist independently of UCUM, so categories like Category:UCUM derived units are inherently non-defining. Templates like Template:UCUM radiometry units and Template:UCUM light units are almost entirely redundant with the equivalent SI templates; they don't add any useful information. UCUM would be much better covered by having one article that covers the system in detail, rather than by wasting a bunch of time and effort making categories and templates that are almost entirely redundant with the SI ones. --Srleffler (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about the templates: Are there any reliable secondary sources that show that anyone is using UCUM's mgs basis as a system of measurement? I don't doubt that UCUM is being used to transmit and convert units, but unless there is actual usage of it by human beings as a coherent mgs system there is no point making tables of derived units like Template:UCUM radiometry units and Template:UCUM light units.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move Template:SI prefixes (infobox) to Template:Metric prefixes (infobox)? DuncanHill (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the move. That template is explicitly about SI. We already have Template:Common metric prefixes for general explanation of metric prefixes.--Srleffler (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating UCUM derived unit.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Redirects should not be made from the mainspace to the draftspace, as this could lead to readers accidentally ending up on articles that are not currently considered ready to be part of the encyclopedia.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Festivals named after magazines, which you created, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Magazine festivals. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UCUM units, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Srleffler (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UCUM derived units, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Srleffler (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating UCUM base unit.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

A merge has been suggested on the article’s talk page.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Atsme}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Gram per cubic metre, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Masum Reza^📞 16:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited June 16, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Newman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 16:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Dimes & Discourses.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by StarryGrandma was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is a mixed unit - we have grams/cubic centimeter in the CGS system and kilograms per cubic meter in the MKS system. This mixed unit is not needed.

StarryGrandma (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh! 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! StarryGrandma (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on IPhone 9 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_1#IPhone_9. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, 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 visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zerach (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on IPhone 9 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_1#IPhone_9. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, 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 visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (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 Frood was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There is no inline citations in this. Please review WP:ILC for information on how and where to include these.

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:UCUM derived unit 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:UCUM derived unit, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– Frood (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edits on Handwritten (Shawn Mendes album). Most of the edits you reverted were right, but, why did you revert my edit writing the single date of Stitches instead of the promo date? Shouldn’t we write the single edit release instead of the promo release? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was getting the message saying "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually.". Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Gram per cubic metre, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Sam-2727 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: It's all there in the mainspace already. If you think the mainspace articles are unsatisfactory, add this content to the mainspace articles directly. The sections I'm referring to are Unified_Code_for_Units_of_Measure#Base_units and SI Units.

Sam-2727 (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited OneRepublic discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Christmas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to One Direction does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Brown Chocolate (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Steel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. livelikemusic talk! 14:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing the TBA parameter for Ava Max. No other article includes that. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether other articles include it or not is not the issue. As explained—multiple times—{{TableTBA}} is built for usage within tables, especially where background shading, provided by templates such as data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | —, is not required. Just because "other pages" do something does not mean all should. That is like saying if your friends jumped off a bridge and died, you would do the same. It's a null argument. livelikemusic talk! 14:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that other articles include {{TBA}} and not {{TableTBA}}.

That's not reason enough to edit-war the information, ignore Wikipedia policy and reasons for why someone is implementing {{TableTBA}} for the reasons it is being added, especially when {{TBA}}, per its template, is built for usage in comparison tables. livelikemusic talk! 14:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neel.arunabh reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: ). Thank you. livelikemusic talk! 14:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already been blocked for edit warring earlier. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can be blocked, more than once, for any specific reason, including edit-warring. livelikemusic talk! 14:27, 27 April 2020 (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 GoingBatty 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs additional independent reliable sources. (No sources were added since the previous review.)

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:Aayush Sharma 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:Aayush Sharma, 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, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GoingBatty (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Cake (2017 song) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Cake (Flo Rida song). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original creator of the page has blocked indefinitely, so I recreated the page. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Libertad 548 (album) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Libertad 548. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original creator of the page has blocked indefinitely, so I recreated the page. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Hinduism, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But how do I fix the reference errors? Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see that I had been edit-warring long time back for a similar reason. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not by mass-revert. It's the notes, which I moved into a notes-list... Sigh. That's awful stuff to solve. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mastermind Groups requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect IPhone 9. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#IPhone 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Does It Feel. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – We Don't Talk Anymore (Charlie Puth song). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at We Don't Talk Anymore (Charlie Puth song). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lopifalko Please read the title of a page before tagging it for WP:A10. Does It Feel is a song from the re-release of Nine Track Mind. Since I did not know what to write about that track, so I copied the information from We Don't Talk Anymore. I did the same thing with Woke the Fuck Up and copied stuff from All Time Low. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your undiscussed and unexplained move of Fuel pump, and left a more detailed explanation on its talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Article titles. If you still believe the article needs to be moved, you may propose an RM on its talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fuel pump (disambiguation) 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/Fuel pump (disambiguation) 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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page IPhone 9 has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, 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.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a personal opinion on this redirect, but was merely implementing the outcome of this RfD discussion. If you have anything to discuss with me about it, start a discussion on my user talk page (or just continue here). Don't recreate the deleted redirect's talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect AZERTW. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#AZERTW until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurant reviews has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fuddle (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move the redirect iPhone 10 to IPhone 10th anniversary? This is very confusing because now the history of the "iPhone 10th anniversary" redirect is actually the history of the "iPhone 10" redirect. We should move the page history back to where it was. Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted the move. Please don't do this again. Mz7 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted your recently created implausible redirects. What is the reasoning behind the rapid page moves of the recent WP:TFAs John Leak and Melanie Barnett? Woody (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the vandalism warning to you by mistake, because I did not realize that 🍜 was not a redirect. Seventyfiveyears at 00:32, 9 August 2020

Hello, I'm Puzzledvegetable. An edit that you recently made to Quora seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lady Gaga shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. © Tbhotch^™ 18:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a talkpage. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the table of Punjabi songs from List of songs recorded by Sunidhi Chauhan just because the table was not formatted properly. I request other editors to restore the table with proper formatting. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of songs recorded by Sunidhi Chauhan

added links pointing to Shabbir Ahmed, Leslie Lewis, Tees Maar Khan, Parichay, Guzaarish, Mumbai Xpress, Rishtey, Teri Meri Kahaani and Papon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Izno (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NCM page has too many red links. So, I only removed those red links. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on ⋥ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on ⋐ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have made a lot of pages from wiktionary that have no content. I was placing CSD on all of them, but stopped to ask you , if you intend to add content to it. Please add content to these pages, if you dont wish to do so, I will mark CSD#A3. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add content to those pages? Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ⋥, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that has essentially the same content as https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/⋥, an article on another Wikimedia Foundation project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ⋤, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that has essentially the same content as https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/⋤, an article on another Wikimedia Foundation project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Alexandermcnabb, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋴, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Alexandermcnabb, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋵ for deletion, because it's not written in English and seems to have been copied from an article on another Wikimedia project. To request a translation, please visit our translators over here. If you'd like to contribute to another Wikipedia, take a look at our full list of language projects.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Alexandermcnabb, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋽ for deletion, because it's not written in English and seems to have been copied from an article on another Wikimedia project. To request a translation, please visit our translators over here. If you'd like to contribute to another Wikipedia, take a look at our full list of language projects.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Alexandermcnabb, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋾ for deletion, because it's not written in English and seems to have been copied from an article on another Wikimedia project. To request a translation, please visit our translators over here. If you'd like to contribute to another Wikipedia, take a look at our full list of language projects.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋶, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋷, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋸, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋹, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Alexandermcnabb, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋼, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Alexandermcnabb, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋺, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Alexandermcnabb, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, ⋻, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mastermind Groups".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Weeknd; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. With all the back-and-forth, I should you remind you of the same ... Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ⋾, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AntoineHound (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ⋽, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AntoineHound (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ⋵, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AntoineHound (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox_NiteOwl I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit to Π is against the recent consesus on the talk page. The recent discussion at Talk:π#Redirect target clearly says to redirect to Pi (disambiguation). So, please revert your latest edit. Since I am currently blocked, I cannot go to your talk page. So, I am pinging you here instead. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DaxServer. I noticed that you recently removed content from C.I.D. (1956 film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like 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. I did not understand why you have changed the citation. You have neither explained in your edit summary. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False alert. I have reverted back to your edit. Please ignore my message above. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neel.arunabh. Please see the official spelling on the on the CBFC certificate at 0:01. Also, note that the Telugu letter ష is transliterated into English as 'sh'. As the WP:BOLD move you made this January is reverted, I suggest to open an WP:RM if there's any disagreement. Thanks -- Ab207 (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video you linked is no longer available. Please see the image at iTunes. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here also. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to the talk page now. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neel.arunabh

Please refrain from moving pages without consensus to do so, as you did at Tholi Prema (2018 film). Generally speaking, if a page has been at a long-term stable title for a long time then you should only move it, if that move is an uncontroversial one. In the case of Tholi Prema, user Ab207 has objected to your move, and I moved it back to the long-term stable title at their request. Once that had been done, you should not have moved it again and I have now reverted your move again and protected the page against further moves.

If you wish to propose a new name for the article, please do so by initiating a requested-move discussion, as per the instructions at WP:RM.

Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Protection policy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. YODADICAE👽 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you have been making this edit since 2016. Content (especially negative) is only included if several sources consider it noteworthy, thus justifying due weightage in the article. It should also be directly attributed to the source, instead of using wording like "what some claimed" and "Twitter exploded with tweets saying". Finally, make sure to avoid weasel wording like "striking similarity" and "strangely similar" in Wikipedia's voice. These should be in quotes, and attributed directly to the critic that said them too. Thanks.--NØ 15:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neel.arunabh reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. YODADICAE👽 17:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for self-reverting your changes to Wikipedia:Protection policy. I trust you will wait until after consensus is reached at the talk page to make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred while I also appreciate the revert, this appears to be an ongoing problem given their persistent inclination to edit war based on the countless discussions here and at WP:ANEW. YODADICAE👽 17:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: I agree, which is why I'd love to hear from Neel.arunabh about what they will do different in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maroon 5's official store is indeed a reliable source, but if you aren't convinced there's also Billboard, People, Amazon and literally their own tweet about it. Apple Music is wrong and needs to be fixed. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WP:Move review. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Calidum 16:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calidum I have withdrawn the review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And attempted to resubmit it once more [2]. Do it again and I will report you to WP:ANI. -- Calidum 16:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then, what steps do I take? Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some reading: WP:MRNOT and then again the move review has not been closed. I suggest being patient as it might take a while. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Academy 360 Cougars. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Academy 360 Cougars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kasautii Zindagii Kay (2018 TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Khmer, Bihari and Kasautii Zindagii Kay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nimitz Hill (geography). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 15#Nimitz Hill (geography) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. WesGeek (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 🙏 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 16:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not your first time doing this, you've been blocked for edit warring earlier too, and have continued to edit war across multiple articles over the years. —SpacemanSpiff 16:15, 30 August 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will not edit war anymore. I will continue the discussion at Talk:🙏. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not convince me that you will refrain from edit warring when confronted with an editing dispute, especially if you see it as beneficial to do so. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 31 August 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.

You were previously blocked for edit warring, but continued to do so. Why should we believe that this committment will stick? 331dot (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not just that, in May there was no action taken after a complaint at AN3, in June there was disruption at Move Review, every time there's the "I'll follow policy" claim, but that obviously just means that "don't block me now". —SpacemanSpiff 18:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I know that this particular page is breaking the consistency with other wiktionary redirects. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for clarifying that you will only follow policies and guidelines when it suits your preference. —SpacemanSpiff 19:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not only when it suits my preference. I will always follow the policies and guidelines, but I also need everything to be consistent. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:44, 30 August 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will refrain from edit warring when confronted with an editing dispute. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have several edit-warring blocks on your record and your unblock request and comments above do not convince me that anything's going to change. Honestly, I'm surprised this wasn't an indefinite block. Declined. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:46, 3 September 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.

GeneralNotability I am waiting for the opportunity to comment at Talk:🙏. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:42, 3 September 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am still waiting for the opportunity to comment at Talk:🙏. Plus, I am involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021_August_29#Nimitz_Hill_(geography). I need to be unblocked before that discussion is closed or relisted. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Once again, as per GeneralNotability above, this unblock request shows no acknowledgement of what caused the block in the first place or evidence that anything will change. Also, the block is only two weeks, so it will expire next week. Being blocked by definition means you are not able to participate in discussions, and there is no particular reason why you personally have to contribute to those discussions that you mention. I am going to turn off talk page access now, because it is not productive to keep having denied unblocks in this fashion. I am hopeful that you will take this time to think about how to avoid longer blocks going forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 6 September 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.

Please do not email me and comment on the talk page discussion when you come back instead. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email on the RFD. There is no requirement to keep XFD discussions open while a block is in place. You are welcome to take the issue to DRV when you return, but the RFD already had been extended and the outcome was clear. MBisanz ^talk 16:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have apparently been blanket reverting several articles, and referencing very minor formatting issues in your edit summaries - that do not match the edits you are actually making. Please slow down and use talk pages to explain what is is you are attempting to do. MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to your closing comments at a Requested Move at Talk:North India § Requested move 20 October 2021. I didn't understand what you meant with your comment I note with dissatisfaction that the nominator has been blocked indefinitely, a completely absurd decision. There have been many, many discussions on Wikipedia before with sockpuppets, and we were able to survive. (It's especially ridiculous in an RM discussion, which is so explicitly WP:NOTAVOTE) (emphasis mine). Did you mean you don't agree that the nominator was blocked indefinitely or something else? Could you clarify please? — DaxServer (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaxServer I tried to mimic similar comments at Talk:Apple (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 September 2020 which said I note with dissatisfaction that the talk page was inexplicably semi-protected, a completely absurd decision. There have been many, many discussions on Wikipedia before with sockpuppets, and we were able to survive. Talk pages should never be locked during a debate. (It's especially ridiculous in an RM discussion, which is so explicitly WP:NOTAVOTE.) Anyway, even a casual reading of the arguments here shows that the fruit is still widely considered to be far more significant than any other use., so I think that the RM itself was an absurd decision. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that Apple RM, the closer @Red Slash meant - he was not satisfied with the decision of talk page being semi-protected (with the reasons he provided). However your sentence conveys a totally different meaning - that you are not satisfied with the decision of blocking the nominator. You might want to update the statement. — DaxServer (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you want from me, but I've asked you at Talk:Tesla Model S to leave my userboxes alone in any discussion you have. So you've started one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes? I request you delete that thread immediately. Gonnym (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, wbm1058 said at Talk:Tesla Model S that user boxes are off topic on Tesla Model S. Please take that issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes.. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been possible to raise your issue without personalizing this and making it about Gonnym. I'm taking the unusual administrative action of changing your section heading: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes § Multiple user boxes stretch across the screen, causing display issues. In the future, please refrain from unnecessarily personalizing your problem reports. wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wazir (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PK.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was rejected by the reviewer at AfC. I see that you have moved it to mainspace yourself. I have proposed deletion, for the same reasons that creation of the article was rejected.--Srleffler (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gram per cubic metre 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/Gram per cubic metre 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.

Srleffler (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neel. I'm afraid this edit contains lots of errors and is the in the wrong Eng Var. It's not a big plot detail and I'm afraid it's also ungrammatical. I am happy to discuss on the talk page if you wish but please don't restore without discussion. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discuss on the talk page. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matilda_(novel)#Additional_plot_paragraph. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh,

Please stop moving this article around. While I'm sure it could be improved, it has existed since 2009. It is not appropriate to move long-existing article to Draft space. That is done for newly created articles which need extra time to develop them. If you think this article is not suitable content for Wikipedia, then please tag it for deletion. But don't move older articles to Draft space. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the same goes for Fareb (1996 film). It's making me wonder whether your account is compromised. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion of gram per cubic meter, I have nominated the remaining UCUM unit pages and tempalates for deletion. PianoDan (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you seem to be engaged in an edit war on the page for Curious George Goes to the Hospital. While it's hard to alert the other user, since they seem to be using an anonymous address, I'd encourage you to discuss the change on the discussion I have created on the talk page before continuing to revert the same change over and over. PianoDan (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say that I do appreciate all the effort that you put into the UCUM articles. While I don't think this was a good project, I do appreciate how much work you put into them, and I regret the need to delete them. I hope you will find other topics that inspire you as much. --Srleffler (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Fareb (2010 film), to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – robertsky (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. You have been warned (friendlily by another editor/admin) before on making unnecessary page moves. You have made page moves again on Vaastav: The Reality, Fareb (1996 film), and Daava article pages. – robertsky (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:UCUM unit templates 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. Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To all users here, I just wanted to let you know that I moved Gladys Knight & the Pips to The Pips (band) only to parallel things with The Miracles, and I am writing on my own talk page. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting that move, which you should have discussed beforehand and which is completely unjustified. See here. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongfilter And what about [3] and [4]? Those are also over the same theme. Neel.arunabh (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Arjun Pandit (2010 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Arjun Pandit (2010 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yaraana (2014 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Yaraana (2014 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pawan Putra Bhaijaan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable future film, fails WP:NFF should be deleted or moved to draft until release

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No-one here works for Facebook, so no-one here is going to be able to fix anything wrong with Facebook. Please stop contacting people on Wikipedia about this issue, as none of us are able to help you, and it's getting disruptive and annoying. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is annoying, if you want to fix something then go to facebook, otherwise everyone (including me) will just get annoyed. Zippy (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I had reported this to Facebook the first day itself. Time is passing and I have still not got any response. So, I am in this sticky pickle. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to wait. Facebook isn't that great of a place anyway from what I hear (I have a FB account but don't use it much). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.192.76.8.88 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ⋾ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#⋾ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being banned from Wikipedia by the community (Special:Permalink/1066833242#Neel.arunabh's competence issues).

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 ~~~~}}.   Sandstein 10:16, 20 January 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am really dissatisfied with this indefinite block at Special:Permalink/1066833242#Neel.arunabh's competence issues. I know that "indefinite" is not the same as "infinite". For everyone before declining this, please see my github profile at [5]. GitHub is a collaborative community just like Wikipedia. As I can collaborate well on GitHub, I assure all admins that I will be able to contribute well on Wikipedia because I am a human. I really cannot live without editing Wiki. I can break the stick and wait for a month. Per Valereee's comment in the ANI, If you're blocked you can consider contributing more carefully at some other wikimedia project to see if you can develop the necessary competence and appeal here in a year or so., I really want to resume to Wikipedia after one month itself. I really need to do something to get this ban lifted. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Much, much too soon. The community consensus was reached literally earlier today. Yamla (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2022 (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 really want to resume to Wikipedia after one month itself. I really need to do something to get this ban lifted.

Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

• I predict that this is going to end with TPA revoked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Rosguill, I really need some good advice. Revoking talk page access will be even worse. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, we're done giving you advice, that's why you were banned. I predict TPA will happen because in the ANI discussion you gave every indication that you are incapable of understanding when to quit, and that you will not quit until someone makes you quit. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'm also pretty confident that you're going to misread that half-sentence as a green light to keep appealing, which will result in a loss of talk page access. Please don't ping me again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neel, the best advice I can give you is to stop posting on your talk page, log out of Wikipedia, and stay away from it altogether for at least a month, if not longer. If you can't do that, your talk page access will be revoked. You're going to have to find another hobby. I know quitting Wikipedia is hard - I've retired at least 3 separate times, and I couldn't stay away, so I know it would be hard for me if I was banned. But you're going to have to find a way to deal with being banned. Find something else to do that you enjoy, or can't always do because you're on Wikipedia instead. If you don't, your talk access will be revoked. BilCat (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with BilCat. You are treating your talkpage similar to a blog now (stackexhange updates below). It is a lot similar to WP:NOTFORUM. If you post irrelevant stuff here again, you might get your TPA revoked. I suggest you edit some other wikipedia, hindi or bengali. Edit there for six months without any problems, and after that — after six months of smooth editing there, post an unblock request here. That way you will get time to reflect on why you were blocked here, and what should you do next. Again, I highly recommend you to not to post here. If your TPA gets revoked, then you wouldnt be able to post an unblock request. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neel, I went ahead and disabled email from your account for abusing the email function. You are banned from the English Wikipedia, period. You are not allowed to skirt that ban by sending out an email promoting one of your redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If you are blocked you also cannot make unregistered edits, like you did here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kala Chashma 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/Kala Chashma 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.

Mako001 (C)  (T)  12:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Natural and Political Observations upon the Bills of Mortality and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#Natural and Political Observations upon the Bills of Mortality until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Mike 🗩 18:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Wiktionary contributions are at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Neel.arunabh. Let me make more edits in Wiktionary this month. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lucchey Laffange and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Lucchey Laffange until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ⊚ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#⊚ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ∾ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#∾ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ⋵ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#⋵ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ⋺ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#⋺ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ≬ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#≬ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed today the message you sent a month ago, owing to the rather bizarre way that you sent it, but: Please don't contact me off-wiki to try to affect the outcome of RfDs. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Paradoctor (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi everyone. Welcome back to the English Wikipedia. So, for 6 months, I broke the stick and have been preparing for what I should post in the unblock request. Today turns out to be the 30th birthday of my favorite musician Selena Gomez. I decided to celebrate her 30th birthday by posting this unblock request.

Before, I begin the unblock request, I had a few things to point out. That ANI discussion above was started by an anonymous IP user from University of Oxford (See the IP's talk page). I can see that most of the ANI discussions are started by registered users, not by anonymous users like that discussion.

I am also grateful that one of my wiki-friends has become an admin.

So, looking at the messages above: Neel, the best advice I can give you is to stop posting on your talk page, log out of Wikipedia, and stay away from it altogether for at least a month, if not longer. If you can't do that, your talk page access will be revoked. You're going to have to find another hobby. I know quitting Wikipedia is hard - I've retired at least 3 separate times, and I couldn't stay away, so I know it would be hard for me if I was banned. But you're going to have to find a way to deal with being banned. Find something else to do that you enjoy, or can't always do because you're on Wikipedia instead. If you don't, your talk access will be revoked. and You are treating your talkpage similar to a blog now (stackexhange updates below). It is a lot similar to WP:NOTFORUM. If you post irrelevant stuff here again, you might get your TPA revoked. I suggest you edit some other wikipedia, hindi or bengali. Edit there for six months without any problems, and after that — after six months of smooth editing there, post an unblock request here. That way you will get time to reflect on why you were blocked here, and what should you do next. Again, I highly recommend you to not to post here. If your TPA gets revoked, then you wouldnt be able to post an unblock request., the main thing that I was reading was Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals_of_bans_imposed_by_the_community and Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks.

So, currently on my user page there is a note saying This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. Since then, I have been creating my own user pages on other Wikis. Once I return to English Wikipedia, I would be able to create my user page here also.

So, every year around November-December, I receive the Elections voter message. So, I must appeal this ban, so that I do not miss the 2022 Elections voter message.

Now, I am also eligible for The Wikipedia Library. To access the library, the following conditions are required:

500+ edits
6+ months editing
10+ edits in the last month
No active blocks

So, my block on English Wikipedia is preventing me from accessing the library.

Now, let us go to the discussion.

• Neel.arunabh has admitted to copying other editor's comments to guide their participation in talk page discussions. While a degree of mimicry may be appropriate, the error that Neel.arunabh was apologizing for in this discussion suggests that they are in fact copying comments whole-cloth and then lightly editing, in this case leaving in text that was only relevant to the specific arguments of the discussion from which the response was copied (I believe a similar exchange in an RfD discussion that I had with them but have not gone hunting for this diff). This behavior raises concerns about both English-language comprehension and potentials for copyright infringement in mainspace.: After spending time outside of English Wikipedia, I am learning to better interpret people's comments in English without blindly imitating them.
• I didn't even mention things like their abusive sockpuppetry and logged out editing as OnlyThenDidI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 108.35.3.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which they used to do things like remove speedy deletion templates from pages they had created (coincidentally the same set of redirects @BilledMammal: has just nominated for deletion, double voting in the RFD about 🍜 and edit warring across a number of articles.: Some of my actions have been protest actions. So, many of the unicode characters had existed earlier, but were deleted through Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 16#⋾ But that time, I was not aware of RfD discussions. So, 6 months later, I started looking at the Mathematical Operators (Unicode block) and created soft redirects for all the red links including the ones that were deleted from the first discussion. Yet, many of these were now tagged for WP:A2 and WP:A3, standards which do not apply to redirects. The WP:A2 and WP:A3 were declined by other users. However, three of the characters (also deleted from the first discussion) were deleted via WP:A2. Then, I recreated all the three redirects in February 2021. This time, they were tagged for WP:G1. So, I was planning a way to protest against the WP:G1. Since the speedy deletion templates should not be removed by the creator, I first contested all the deletions on the talk pages. After, that I went to fix the reference errors at Dimitri Bakradze, Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Harappa, Jatin Bora, and Soviet Union. After that, the OnlyThenDidI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account was created. The account first declined the WP:G1 deletions. The account then participated in these AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Gilman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel M. Kozub, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Jopling, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Aycock. At that time, no reports were made against that account. However, one month later, the account was used to edit war at Expectations (Bebe Rexha album), Nine Track Mind, One Call Away (Charlie Puth song), We Don't Talk Anymore (Charlie Puth song), Marvin Gaye (song), and Charlie Puth. Those edits were reported on a random admin's talk page. The admin blocked the account as my sockpuppet. Later, the user who had tagged the redirects for WP:G1 them self was blocked for block evasion and sockpuppetery. Then just coinciding with the ANI discussion, the redirects were nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#⋾, but they were closed as train wreck while I have been banned. After that the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#⋵ was opened while I have been banned and was also closed as no consensus. The same user who opened the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#⋾ discussion mentioned at the ANI, I suspect that English is not their first language; it may be beneficial for them to edit on their native language Wikipedia before appealing here, as the language barrier may be why they have struggled to gain competence.. I decided to protest against that comment by calling I suspect that English is not their first language a WP:PA and sending a level 4 warning on the user's talk page. My block evasion as 71.187.155.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) again was to protest against an RfD. Coincidentally, another voter in the same RfD was a sockpuppeteer. As I have now moved to a new location, my IP address, when I am not logged in, is 173.63.23.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have not made any unregistered edits from that IP address. So, at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans‎‎, it says Banned editors should not create a new account to file an appeal or to post in a discussion. This would be considered sock-puppetry and the new account will usually be blocked. They should be seen to comply with their ban, which will gain a more favorable opinion. Appeals and comments related to an existing ban should be submitted as described below.. So, I have not created any other account while I have been banned.
• There are also their disastrous attempts to fix things, like "fixing" reference errors by deleting references and content from articles. They claim above that they stopped doing this in 2015 after a block for edit warring, something that is patently false as a look at their talk page will show them collecting more warnings for the same behaviour in 2017 and 2020, in the last one they ask "how am I supposed to fix reference errors except by reverting the page to an old version" - someone with this little clue shouldn't be trying to fix reference errors, in fact they shouldn't be editing at all.: So, I am also learning to fix reference errors without making any drastic mess.
• We can now add borderline canvassing attempts (Special:Diff/1066490896) to the list of problematic behaviors. The two comments made in this diff also once again display a poor command of English to the point that it interferes with his ability to make or understand arguments, coupled with rote repetition of common RfD phrases.: Again, I now know how to comment at RfD without pinging random users.
• So the problems here with your editing: Requested moves is for "Controversial" or "Contested" moves - if I suggest moving a page and you agree there is no need to go through a week long discussion at requested moves I had already started the process for getting the page moved, there was no reason at all for you to start another process for moving the page. Running multiple processes at once just wastes everyone's time. You started the requested move after the page had already been moved back to the original title. You copied my statement from the technical requests page and passed it off as your own. This is creepy, a copyright violation and seriously beings into question your competence to edit if you can't express simple thoughts in your own words. Your unnecessary requested move was picked up by the bot and added to the list of requested moves. The person who did the technical request had to fuck about cleaning up the mess that you made, turning a 30 second job into several minutes of clean-up. I said that your editing here consisted of making messes, edit warring and wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes., to which you said that you would avoid wasting people's time. Less than an hour later you were wasting time in project space with nonsense misuses of processes resulting in a mess that other people have had to clean up.: So, now I can contribute without wasting time in project space.

Now, in the English wiktionary, I have not run into the same problems. The only incident was the unverified edits at [6], mentioned at [7]: Given the lack of reply, I have reverted Neel.arunabh's additions. Neel has been banned from English Wikipedia for similar antics, so it may be worthwhile to review his Wiktionary contributions and revert likewise..

I have also contributed in the Hindi Wikipedia. The only thing is that I have not got the move privilege yet on the Hindi Wikipedia. I have not run into any problems on the Hindi Wikipedia.

And finally, Wikipedia users sometimes take wiki-breaks. The wiki-breaks are much better that losing edit privileges. So, I too will be taking wiki-breaks. So, I am requesting an unblock per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals_of_bans_imposed_by_the_community. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is not reasonable to expect an admin to read this. Please resubmit with a max of 3 short paragraphs. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2022 (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.

Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The long request went out of hand. So, I am shortening it. Before, I begin the unblock request, I had a few things to point out. That ANI discussion above was started by an anonymous IP user from University of Oxford (See the IP's talk page). I can see that most of the ANI discussions are started by registered users, not by anonymous users like that discussion. I am also grateful that one of my wiki-friends has become an admin.

Currently on my user page there is a note saying Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. Since then, I have been creating my own user pages on other Wikis. Once I return to English Wikipedia, I would be able to create my user page here also. Every year around November-December, I receive the Elections voter message. So, I must appeal this ban, so that I do not miss the 2022 Elections voter message. I am also eligible for The Wikipedia Library. To access the library, the following conditions are required: 500+ edits; 6+ months editing; 10+ edits in the last month; No active blocks. This block on English Wikipedia is preventing me from accessing the library.

Per BilCat and Usernamekiran above, I have broken the stick and participated in other wikis without any problems. I read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans. Banned editors should not create a new account to file an appeal or to post in a discussion. So, I have not created any other account in this 6 months. My block evasion as 71.187.155.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) again was to protest against an RfD, where another voter was a sockpuppeteer. As I have now moved to a new location, my IP address, when I am not logged in, is 173.63.23.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have not made any unregistered edits from that IP address. I request for an unblock per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals_of_bans_imposed_by_the_community. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your statement about not having created an account in the past six months is made meaningless by your IP block evasion. You have only gone 3 months since your last attempt to evade your block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2022 (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.

Category:UCUM base units has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Tamzin Welcome back to English Wikipedia. It is finally time for me to send an unblock request now. Before, I begin the unblock request, I had a few things to point out. That ANI discussion above was started by an anonymous IP user from University of Oxford (See the IP's talk page). I can see that most of the ANI discussions are started by registered users, not by anonymous users like that discussion. I am also grateful that you have become an admin.

Currently on my user page, there is a note saying Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. Since then, I have been creating my own user pages on other Wikis. Once I return to English Wikipedia, I would be able to create my user page here also. I am also eligible for The Wikipedia Library. To access the library, the following conditions are required: 500+ edits; 6+ months editing; 10+ edits in the last month; No active blocks. This block on English Wikipedia is preventing me from accessing the library.

So, now I should be unblocked per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals_of_bans_imposed_by_the_community for two reasons. First, it is six months since I tried to evade my block as 71.187.155.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to protest against an RfD, and I have also participated in other wikis without any problems, so now I have learned lessons not to make disruptive edits in administrative areas and other places on Wiki, and I am now ready to make more useful contributions here. Second, it is going to be a month before I get the ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message, and I should be back on English Wikipedia before it is time for the 2022 election. So, I am first waiting for a discussion at WP:AN. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is nothing here to post at AN- as noted below, these are the reasons you want to be unblocked, not why you should be. If you want to access the Library, you should have thought of that before you did what got you blocked. I am closing this request; I strongly advise you to not make another for some time, and when you do, it should address why you should be unblocked, not why you want to be. If it doesn't, you will probably lose access to this page. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2022 (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.

Neel.arunabh, did you read the guide to appealing blocks? —usernamekiran (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Usernamekiran:, I read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Users banned by the community (but not under ArbCom bans or blocks designated to be appealed to ArbCom only) are normally unbanned only after a community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard determines whether there is consensus to lift the ban. You should read Wikipedia:Standard offer before appealing an community ban. Users may be considered banned by community for repeated abuse of multiple accounts. Such users may either appeal to community or Arbitration Committee, but after a CheckUser being consulted they will usually be deferred to administrators' noticeboard.. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not going to review this unblock or post this at AN, but you have not provided any reason for why you should be unblocked, only why you want to be unblocked. This is exactly the problem that caused your indef block/ban, and you're just continuing to test the patience of the community. If this continues then I don't think you will have access to this talk page either. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per 331dot above, I will wait for at least a week before I submit the next unblock request, but I just had one question. See this diff. Here, I thought I had added reasons why I should be unblocked. So, before I post the next unblock request, can you first explain why So, now I should be unblocked per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals_of_bans_imposed_by_the_community and I have also participated in other wikis without any problems, so now I have learned lessons not to make disruptive edits in administrative areas and other places on Wiki, and I am now ready to make more useful contributions here is not enough to address why I should be unblocked. That way, I can reflect on what caused the block in the first place and why the unblock request was declined and what kind of request can I make next. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With a chance of my talk page getting revoked, I really need to try hard to make this unblock request. But before I post the request, I have a few things to point out. That ANI discussion above was started by an anonymous IP user from University of Oxford (See the IP's talk page). I can see that most of the ANI discussions are started by registered users, not by anonymous users like that discussion. I am also aware that it is almost time for the ArbCom 2022 Elections. I am also grateful that one of my wiki-friends has become an admin. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Tamzin: I am contacting you here through the Wikipedia:Standard Offer process. I have waited for six months after my block evasion as 173.63.23.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have made loads of promises here. I will try interpret other people's comment in English without blindly imitating them. I will not create new accounts just to protest like I did with OnlyThenDidI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I will try to fix reference errors without making any drastic mess. I will try commenting at RfD without canvassing random users. And I will contribute without carefully wasting time in project space. And I am now posting the unblock request below. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

So, now I should be unblocked for the following reasons. I have made edits on the Hindi Wikipedia without any problems. Also, I have learned more about the English Wikipedia while I have been blocked. So, I am now ready to gain competence here and make useful contributions from my original account here. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are banned by community consensus, not just blocked. I cannot take this request to WP:ANI because there's no chance it would be accepted. Yamla (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2022 (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 suggest waiting at least a month before making another attempt to get your ban lifted. You want to thoroughly understand WP:UNBAN before you do so. Frankly, though, any request needs to be at least an order of magnitude more convincing to have any chance and I'm not sure you'll be ready in a month. Nevertheless, checkuser data shows no evidence of recent ban evasion. --Yamla (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Per WP:UNBAN, Post an appeal unblock template or comment there, by email or other off-site means such as the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS), and ask for it to be reposted to the appropriate discussion board. This is a voluntary act and should not be abused or used to excess.. I just wanted to know what is the meaning of the phrase at least an order of magnitude more convincing.

As you can see, you did not do what was required by WP:UNBAN As to "an order of magnitude more convincing", I mean your current request wouldn't convince anyone. A request that might would have to be at least ten times more convincing. The rest is up to you. --Yamla (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

To editor Tamzin: I am contacting you here through the Wikipedia:Standard Offer process. I am requesting you to repost this at WP:AN. After editing the Hindi Wikipedia without any problems, I have learned the following lessons since the community ban was imposed: copying other people's comments without understanding them; using sockpuppet accounts and anonymous edits to protest against RfDs; deleting references and reverting to old revisions just to fix reference errors; canvassing random users in discussions; and wasting time in project space. If I were allowed to resume editing, this is how I would conduct myself differently in the future: interpret people's comments; give valid arguments to contest RfDs; patiently wait for a consensus in discussions; try to make careful edits to fix reference errors; and contribute carefully in project space. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:SNOW close. Yamla (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2022 (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 don't know why you keep pinging me in particular. I also don't know why you sent me a friend request on Facebook, even after my message above... I guess I only said not to contact me off-wiki about RfDs, but an unsolicited friend request is really never appropriate. (It's not quite OUTING, since I'm open about my IRL identity, but it's at a minimum a very bad idea.) Anyways, I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether to copy this to AN, but please stop pinging me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I sent you a friend request on FB because I need to communicate with more people on social networks just as how I communicate with my friends and family. Per: WP:SO, After you have waited six months, contact a willing administrator or experienced editor (via your user talk page, email, #wikipedia-en-unblock connect or WP:UTRS), so the first user whom I thought of as the willing administrator was you. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandstein and User:Tavix Sorry for the pings, but as the blocking admins, do you think I deserve a second chance. My unblock request has been pending for several days now, but I have not got any response. There has been a recent history of sock edits on this talk page like non-admins reviewing unblock requests and signature forgery. I have been watching WP:AN everyday. I saw a discussion for another user at [8]. That user is now welcome back on English wikipedia. After that, I have been waiting for a similar discussion for me. In the meantime, I am editing my sandbox in the Italian Wikipedia. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, no I don't. I'm not the blocking admin, but I took away email access for off-wiki canvassing yet you did something similar but creepier to Tamzin. No thanks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 7 December 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

To all admins here, I am requesting you to repost this at WP:AN. I understand that I was blocked for being banned by the community. I understand that my talk page will be revoked if I make too many unconvincing unblock requests. I understand that I will be blocked again if I make the same edits after I am unblocked. I will make more useful contributions on my original account here.

I plan to contribute to the articles in my watchlist and edit those and help to improve the encyclopedia. My recent block was declined per WP:SNOW. After editing the Hindi Wikipedia without any problems, I have learned the following lessons since the community ban was imposed: copying other people's comments without understanding them; using sockpuppet accounts and anonymous edits to protest against RfDs; deleting references and reverting to old revisions just to fix reference errors; canvassing random users in discussions; and wasting time in project space. If I were allowed to resume editing, this is how I would conduct myself differently in the future: interpret people's comments; give valid arguments to contest RfDs; patiently wait for a consensus in discussions; try to make careful edits to fix reference errors; and contribute carefully in project space. Lastly, I will not stealth canvass users off-wiki like I did with Tamzin, though off-wiki contributions do not magically disappear with on-wiki blocks.

If there is something I need to do to prove I can be given another chance, please let me know. My edits at Hindi Wikipedia should convince you that I will make more time-saving edits and accept community consensuses that I do not agree with personally. I will be able to contribute here without causing major issues which take up excessive amounts of community time, and my future edits are going to be positive edits. My answers to questions will be honest and satisfactory. My future behavior will be indicative of enough competence. My past issues are going to be resolved, and I will properly understand the issues that were raised in the past. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Firstly, the terms of WP:Standard offer stipulate that the editor should have made "no edit, using any account or anonymously, on English Wikipedia" for a period of six months... perhaps that isn't intended to cover edits made during previous unblock requests, but even so with the sheer volume of recent unblock requests, it doesn't seem like the underlying motivation of that six month period, that you step away from the project, pursue other activities and let time pass, has been met. Secondly, per SpacemanSpiff below and also per the previous unblock request, which was closed 1 day before this one was filed, there is basically no chance the community will support an unblock request at this time, and per general admin consensus here and above it is not worth taking it to AN at this time. There might be a route back for Neel.arunabh to resume editing eventually, but as I see it it will require stepping away for a period of at least six months first, stopping and then demonstrating genuine understanding about the reasons for the community ban and identifying a clear path to rectifying those reasons, beyond just bland statements of "I will be able to contribute here without causing major issues". The requests so far do not show a genuine understanding, and additionally Neel has engaged in what is considered inappropriate behaviour off-wiki. This is now the fourth SO request in three months and there's a general consensus that it's becoming disruptive, so I am removing talk page access at this time. Per WP:TPA, "disruptive use of the unblock template may prompt an administrator to remove the blocked user's ability to edit their talk page. In this case, a block may still be appealed by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.". I'm genuinely sorry it's come to this, and I wish Neel well, but there's no point dragging this out longer at this point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2022 (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.

Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posting the same, or at least very similar, 'pre-unblock request notes' like you did above won't convince others that you've changed your ways. Moreover, I'm concerned about the note's content itself. It comes off as if you are blaming the other user for the block, which weakens the truthfulness of your promise that you will accept community consensuses that you do not agree with personally. And just so you know, WP:SO resets every time you make an edit on enwiki. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC); edited 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lol1VNIO: WP:SO resets every time make an edit on enwiki. Do the edits to this talk page also count? If that is the case, then I will have to wait until next year to use the WP:SO. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no edits on enwiki means no edits on enwiki. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lol1VNIO: And what statement in the note was coming off as if I was blaming the other user for the block? Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was this one: "That ANI discussion above was started by an anonymous IP user from University of Oxford (See the IP's talk page). I can see that most of the ANI discussions are started by registered users, not by anonymous users like that discussion." ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who blocked you in the past, and seeing your behavior post the expiry of that block (and as I posted in a note earlier) I don't believe you should be unblocked. However, I will let someone else decide whether or not this should go to AN. Your behavior over here has been nothing short of disruptive and atrocious and more than anything else, you just seem to find new ways to continue the disruption. Random emailing of admins, random pinging, and once email access has been removed, you've even started sending random Facebook friend requests! It's just that every time some form of disruptive behavior of yours is brought to your notice or sanctioned, you find a new way to disrupt! That said, none of your above SO requests even remotely suggest why you should be unblocked. —SpacemanSpiff 16:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.   — Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for using the Unblock Ticket Request System. I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks). The UTRS software may lock you out for a day or two. Please use this time to review your talk page and the reasons for your block, and to consider how you will address these reasons. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neel.arunabh. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Atlas (The Score album), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to restore TPA so as to carry request to WP:AN in the morning. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru and Tavix: Restoring TPA -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot @Sandstein: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra, how does this concern me? I have no UTRS access and can't see what this is about. Sandstein 14:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the original discussion link. @Neel.arunabh: is requesting unban/unblock. It is here -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: The current appeal at WP:AN does not convince anyone that I have resolved the CIR issues. So, I adding these comments to convince others now. Looking at the four bullet points at WP:CIR, I am listing every CIR issue that caused a block and what I will do instead. 1. English-language comprehension and copyright infringement: See Rosguill's comment in the ANI discussion: The issue here is copying other people's comments in English without understanding. Instead, I will understand every English-language statement without blindly copying them. 2. Reliable sources: The issue here is using unreliable sources the judge my claim. Instead, I will check the reliability of a website before submitting it to back my claim. 3. Consensus: The issue here is edit warring and bludgeoning the process when I do not agree with the community consensus and also using the sock puppet account OnlyThenDidI and logged out IP addresses to protest against the discussion. Instead, I will accept the community consensus and discuss the matter on the article's talk page and on the editor's talk page. 4. Other disruptive edits: A long list of disruptive edits including the three issues I have listed in the previous appeal. For another example, I first try to delete references to fix reference errors. After being blocked for edit warring, I next try to revert to old revisions to fix the errors. Instead, I will make only a relevant edit that fixes the error or leave it for other editors to fix. I hope this will resolve every CIR issue, and when I resume editing, I will make more productive edits. Neel.arunabh (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

carrying over. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: The diffs in Spanish and Hindi mentioned by the IP 86.23.109.101 are actions that I have performed last year in 2022, and it has been more than six months since those edits, and I have not made those same edits this year. We are interested in my behavior on other projects for the last six months. So, the edits in the last six months were just the self-reverted edits in Portuguese and the sandbox edits. So, I guess I will have to wait for another six months now. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

carrying over/ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: The discussion has been archived with no action. What do I do next? Neel.arunabh (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]