Hello, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Non- independent sources should not be removed unless they are replaced with independent sources. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the suggestion. Nuksanhai (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and sorry for the problem i caused Nuksanhai (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nuksanhai! I noticed you've been reverting a lot of IP editors' contributions very rapidly and I'm rather concerned that you don't seem to have left an edit summary for any of these reversions. Edit summaries are needed when the reason for undoing the change is non-obvious—even if you think that the edit is obvious, but another user looking at it might be confused, it's best to leave an edit summary. For instance, while I would also revert the edit you reverted on Fanny pack, this needs an explanation. This is particularly important with unregistered and new editors because we want to foster a positive atmosphere and hopefully convince them that Wikipedia is a place they want to be a part of! See WP:BITE for a policy about this. Other edits such as your reversions here and here are a mystery to me—it's not clear why you've undone these changes, which look useful to the articles. I've undone your reversion here, as the IP editor making the change explained very clearly why their edit was an improvement, and you have not explained why the original version was correct. (Your edit here was also incorrect but I understand why you would revert it; it's my fault for inserting the mistake into the page in the first place.)

I also noticed that you've been posting messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. We don't generally block IP editors unless they have been repeatedly disruptive; it's a last resort when someone is clearly not here to contribute positively. What the situation at Symphony No. 9 (Vaughan Williams) needs is discussion on the talk page—visit Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Vaughan Williams) and start a section about why you think your version is an improvement. The same is true for Ellen Street—at that page you've reverted four times in 15 minutes without a single edit summary! This is actually a violation of a bright-line rule we have called the three-revert rule: in the future, please do not revert more than three times to a single page within 24 hours.

I have this page on my watchlist so I can see replies that you make here. If you'd like to talk to another volunteer, the Teahouse is always happy to answer any questions you have. Thanks! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i will never make such mistakes again. Nuksanhai (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I know that you made this edit before I posted the message above but I'm very concerned to see this edit that you left on an IP talk page. Many people around the world edit Wikipedia and almost all of them have no connection to the subject. It's not appropriate to threaten a user with a block as the first time you talk to them. Bear in mind that this is in all likelihood the person's first experience of contributing to Wikipedia and we don't want to scare them off. The editor has in fact explained the reason for their edits, but you have not explained the reason for yours. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please take a look at can i edit it without a summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Thieves&diff=873672474&oldid=872872306 Nuksanhai (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can i tell him that"hey,there welcome to Wikipedia please check your spellings before publishing an article. happy editing " Nuksanhai (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was to use a summary like "reverting test edit" or "spelling error" and yes, that would be an excellent response. However, some editors think that changes this obviously wrong can be reverted without a summary, and in fact one editor already has done so. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary schools enjoy a special protection here. If you really think that any of the school articles you have tagged should be deleted, you must take each one separately to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing like this is strongly deprcated. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean. I have no profit in this.I do not know if it happens in your country, but it is very common in poor countries like India. Where there are certain companies/organization who run such schools and try to project their schools as best to make heavy profits. If you notice most of those schools lacks notability and do not have citations and those who have citations/references are mostly advertisement and the schools own website. For example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.A.V_Public_School_Sreshtha_Vihar#References . Just tell me which source in independent. I can give you hundreds of such articles and references.

Nuksanhai (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, take a look at WP:CANVASS. You must not keep on contacting people in the way that you are doing, with non-neutral messages intended to bias a particular outcome. It's best not to contact random users for these types of discussions in the first place; people will see deletion requests that you make through the normal processes. Please also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, particularly "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations." Your behaviour is disruptive. Also note that CSD only applies in very, very specific cases and the pages you tagged are not solely promotional—they also contain encyclopedic content. If you wish to nominate pages at AFD, the case is then about existence of sources, not about the current sourcing of the article. Before nominating a page at AFD, you must do your best to search for sources and add any that you find to the article (see WP:BEFORE, particularly point D1). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i will not contact anyone from now regarding this topic. But can you tell me what is encyclopedic in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.A.V_Public_School_Sreshtha_Vihar and why is it notable ? That article looks like advertisement of that school not at all an encyclopedic article. Nuksanhai (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it is written in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools that Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Nuksanhai (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is encyclopedic about it? Things like date established, size of school, principal etc. are non-promotional material, so CSD G11 is not appropriate. As for notability, why not try to find sources about the school to improve the article? Go do some research and some work so that the article does demonstrate notability. If you search as thoroughly as you are able to and cannot find anything, you may nominate it at AFD—but note that (per WP:BEFORE) "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found these

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/East-corporation-show-causes-DAV-for-building-on-playground/articleshow/18702008.cms

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/delhi/dda-cancels-lease-of-public-school/512364.html

https://www.news18.com/news/india/top-ten-schools-in-east-delhi-rating-ranks-information-based-on-top-c-fore-surveys-2016-1506619.html

according to wikipedia 3rd link can not be included (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#NEUT)

form google news search. Nuksanhai (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are good sources and should be added to the article. They show that the school is notable and hence shouldn't be deleted. For the third link, you are misinterpreting that guideline; the issue is not with reporting facts but with reporting insignificant facts or reporting facts in a non-neutral manner. We can say that the school was listed in that top ten ranking, as this is objective fact. As an example, the good article about Malvern College has content in its Academic performance section which reflects positively on the school, but this is allowed as it is significant information reported in a neutral way. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from user talk:RHaworth.

What do you mean. I have no profit in this.I do not know if it happens in your country, but it is very common in poor countries like India. Where there are certain companies/organization who run such schools and try to project their schools as best to make heavy profits. If you notice most of those schools lacks notability and do not have citations and those who have citations/references are mostly advertisement and the schools own website. For example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.A.V_Public_School_Sreshtha_Vihar#References . Just tell me which source in independent. I can give you hundreds of such articles and references. Nuksanhai (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging the page here in discussion would help, @Nuksanhai:. Csgir (talk)

and thanks about your title advice RHaworth Nuksanhai (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Csgir, I have no idea what you mean.

and Nuksanhai, please tell me what "title advice" I gave you. You will achieve more credibility if you learn to keep a discussion thread in one place, to use wikilinks and not to use naked URLs. I will admit that the notability criteria for schools may have become more strict than when I last looked at them (ten years ago?). But any well-established article deserves more than a speedy delete tag. If you see any school article that you think is spam and it has been in mainspace for three months or less, feel free to tag it. But as for the rest, I insist that each one qualifies for its own AfD discussion. For starters, why not send these five to AfD and see how they fare. When they and all the other Indian schools have been deleted, why not start on some English fee-paying schools - how about Whitgift School, Downside School and Worth School to name but three? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth by title advice i meant https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nuksanhai&diff=874138079&oldid=874109506 Nuksanhai (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RHaworth:, I thought that the user, Nuksanhai, was talking about a specific page and hence, asked the user to share the page link for a fruitful discussion. But, as I understood his/her point later, it was mostly a generic rant claiming all educational pages are paid pages, to which I didn't have anything further to add, as the argument wasn't logical. Csgir (talk)

Hi, just some advice. If you add this template to your userpage, it will show an icon at the top which allows people to email you. That way you don't have to have your email address displayed. Otherwise spam bots will skim your email address off your userpage and you are likely to be sent spam. Cesdeva ^(talk) 13:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, once a proposed deletion notice has been removed it can never be replaced as per WP:PROD. Also please note that high schools up to K12 are normally kept but elementary schools are normally redirected or deleted, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Read WP:PROD properly, a prod notice can never be replaced and if you disagree take to WP:AFD once you have completed WP:BEFORE. The consensus is that proposed school deletions should not be flooding the system which you are doing and you have obviously not attempted to add sources so are being disruptive. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey Nuksanhai, I'm rather concerned to see your mass prodding despite the discussions we've had above. I've told you before that G11 does not apply and explained that a more productive approach is to find some sources and improve the current article, rather than trying to fix things by blowing everything up. I've reverted all your prod tagging because they were done so quickly and with the same insufficient rationale that you cannot have had time to look at each article properly. Note also what Atlantic306 says above about high schools. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons 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 ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]