Jump to content

User talk:Akhila3151996

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Akhila3151996, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ninney (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

October 2015

[edit]

Information icon Hi there! 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:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to India 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. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 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. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Binx Walton (November 1)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:
Too strongly reliant on primary source verification of her existence (PR profile on website of own management agency, PR profile on models.com, etc.), with not enough reliable source coverage shown to get her over our inclusion standards for fashion models.
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.
Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Binx Walton (November 4)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This is getting closer but still needs any more available coverage overall about her. Cheers,
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.
SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of news channels in India. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 17:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexf This isn't vandalism. I don't understand why you think that. I am improving the section and getting rid of channels that no longer exist and adding a longer list of other channels. I am still making improvements, Thank you.

The page in question, once you open for editing, clearly states that it is not an indiscriminate list on names but that every entry must have an article in the English Wikipedia that asserts notability. You read it, yet you chose to disregard it. If the companies you want to add are notable, then by all means write the article. Then you might put an entry in the list to point to the article. Disregarding administrative notices is considered vandalism and might lead to a block of your account. -- Alexf(talk) 17:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexf I added links to all the other sources that are notable. I hope you're satisfied and there is no more issues.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of news channels in India. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  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; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you do not understand Wikipedia and edit warring, per the note you left in my user talk page. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. As explained above, and in the edit page for the article, and in the article itself, very prominently, we cannot have lists of everything. Not every company in India is notable. We are trying hard to clean up lists. They are there as a shortcut in the encyclopedia for people to be able to reach the articles. An indiscriminate list of company names, without a sourced article serves no purpose. Please understand this. Now for the warning (again). If you keep reverting you will be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, please ask them here. If you need knowledge of how Wikipedia works, feel free to ask at the Tea House. If you have any issues, please bring them up at ANI. Now stop adding spurious company names and write the articles, if you wish. Any further tries to add unsourced names will result in a block. Fair notice given. -- Alexf(talk) 18:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Binx Walton (November 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.
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.
SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Hate Story 3, you may be blocked from editing. Diff: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

[edit]

Information icon Hi there! 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:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to India 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. Thanks! ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This block was in response to this edit at Hate Story 3. Please stop adding your personal commentary to articles. The community isn't interested in your opinions and these changes are disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Akhila3151996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't stating my opinion, the movie was critically panned. You can check on Google. I simply forgot to add a citation.

Accept reason:

We don't use biased POV statements like "panned" "raved" "declared super-hit" etc. And any summary of critical response needs to be attributed directly to a source, preferably a community approved critical response aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. And the fact that you added the commentary, and flagged it in need of a reference, is completely lazy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA notification

[edit]
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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Languages of Pakistan

[edit]

English has been removed as reported by a number of sources. If they're all wrong, then get a reliable source that says they weren't removed. Citing the constitution isn't enough. The removal was documented by various Pakistani news agencies and international ones. They all can't be wrong. Without a reliable source, your edits will be original research.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will check it and the other sources as well, but your edit was also incorrect that English is the official language while Urdu is the national language. Urdu is national while both were previously official.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but it says that on the pakistan wikipedia page that english is the official language and it also says in the 2014 constitution that," The Official language shall be English until arrangements are made for its replacement with Urdu within fifteen years from the commencement day."http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1393408219_781.pdf. This was on the government's website.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is this in another source,http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part12.ch4.html-Akhila3151996. Sorry this link seems to be broken but search 'Pakistani constitution' online and go to Miscellaneous Chapter 4.(talk) 22:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The first one is not a reliable source as we don't cite other Wikis on Wikipedia. The current state of the Pakistani constitution does not mean that pending changes do not exist. Assuming so would be original research.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nadirali:You said yourself that it is pending. If the laws are officially changed then I can change it. We need to refer to the constitution as that is the superior text.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Megan Rain

[edit]

Hello Akhila3151996,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Megan Rain 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 contest this deletion, 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. ubiquity (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Emotionalllama (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Emotionalllama (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emotionalllama: Sorry about that situation. Where would I be able to get free images and would I need to take my own pictures?-Akhila3151996 (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romi Rain

[edit]

Your edit at AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year indicates that you plan on creating an article for Romi Rain. I'm here to kindly ask you not to. She does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for porn stars (WP:PORNBIO) yet. Every porn star biography article you've created so far (Elsa Jean & Megan Rain) fails WP:PORNBIO and is at risk of being deleted. You're obviously a very new editor and likely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I'm here to tell you why it's problematic to create articles for porn stars who don't pass WP:PORNBIO. Wikipedia has something called WP:Salting, which is when an article title is locked to prevent it's creation after being repeatedly created while failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. "Unsalting" a locked article title is a very difficult process and in some cases, almost impossible. Even if a porn star does eventually pass WP:PORNBIO, the fact that their Wikipedia article was repeatedly created in a time when they didn't pass WP:PORNBIO automatically makes it a "controversial" article. For example, I was easily and uncontroversially able to create an article for Keira Nicole immediately after she passed WP:PORNBIO because it was the first time a Wikipedia article was created for her. But in Shyla Stylez's case, her article was repeatedly created and deleted numerous times. Fortunately, it was never salted, but a user still requested it be "speedy" deleted after I recreated it, even though she met WP:PORNBIO that time around. It's such an unfair double standard and I don't agree with it, but there's nothing I can do about it. Deletion discussions are often held to determine whether or not to delete an article. Before you create any more porn star articles, please browse through these deletion discussions for porn-related articles and examine the arguments made so you can become familiar with WP:PORNBIO (which you should also read) and how Wikipedia's notability guidelines work. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Megan Rain

[edit]

The article Megan Rain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. Unusually bad, even given the average low quality of porn sourcing.

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. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Megan Rain for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Megan Rain 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/Megan Rain until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of PROD at Kathryn Newton

[edit]

Please do not renominate an article for proposed deletion if someone has objected through the removal of the PROD tag. The PROD template is for uncontroversial deletions only, and once there is opposition it cannot be tagged for deletion via the proposed deletion method again. "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with an AfD, and it may only be placed on an article a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brianna Hildebrand has been accepted

[edit]
Brianna Hildebrand, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 08:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Rain

[edit]

Where is the reference for the award you claim she won, and what is your basis for re-creating the article? How does she now meet WP:PORNBIO? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the article as a recreation that does not address the concerns raised in the AfD closed just two weeks ago. It had even fewer sources, which were pretty much garbage where our policies are concerned. Akhila3151996, if you think adding THE non-notable "Spank Bank Award" for "Best Display of Twerking on a Hoverboard" somehow negates the consensus for deletion, you're incorrect. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was heading in that direction as well. The notion that the contributor thinks that a clearly tongue-in-cheek non-mainstream "award" like this would somehow qualify the subject as notable, raises serious questions about competence and judgment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I made a mistake. This was funny. I won't make one until she gets a mainstream award.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

[edit]

Just wanted to apologize. Your edits on Languages with official status in India‎ were indeed correct. My mistake. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millennials

[edit]

Over time you are edit warring about the dates on the article. Please stop.

Edit warring on Millennials

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Millennials 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 are 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. Wwwma (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

[edit]

If you continue to edit on millennials you will be blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.3.86 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@108.24.3.86: You aren't an editor, and I already received this notice. I am trying to add information that I think is useful. Please try to understand that. I haven't edited it after recently anyway.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Morgan Lee

[edit]

The article Morgan Lee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No reliably or independent sourced nontrivial biographical content. Negligible biographical content of any sort. Claimed award fails the "well-known"/"significant standard of PORNBIO. In any event, the utter GNG failure overrides and technical pass of this SNG.

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. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section titled "future influences".

[edit]

Added the section to generation z.

-Wikiman8999 —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Akhila3151996. 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]

[edit]

Hi Akhila, I tried to edit the generations sidebar to include the 2 other current living generations, the Silent Generation and the Greatest Generation but I notice the changes don't show up on main articles. I'm not very familiar with sidebars, do you know how to do this? --DynaGirl (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DynaGirl did you go to the template?-Akhila3151996 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but the changes didn't show up on the Generation X page at first, even after I refreshed the page on my browser. They are there now though. It's weird. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DynaGirl They seem to show up on other pages but not the millennials page.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They show up on the Millennials page for me. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Romi Rain, from its old location at User:Akhila3151996/Romi Rain. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. North America1000 13:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Romi Rain

[edit]

Draft:Romi Rain, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Romi Rain and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Romi Rain during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. North America1000 20:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Megan Rain

[edit]

Hello, Akhila3151996. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Megan Rain".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Akhila3151996. 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]

Editing while logged out on talk:Millennials

[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to talk:Millennials 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. DynaGirl (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akhila3151996, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. DynaGirl (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Volume of Your Recent Edits and Requests

[edit]

Hi ‎Akhila3151996,

I don't know that there is a hard-and-fast rule about this, but making eleven edits[2] in response to one user's comment without any intervening edits seems like a bit too much, especially when it keeps the page at the top of the Watchlist. What's more, to immediately follow that up by calling a user's attention to a marginally related question seems like a bit more than a bit too much.

I ask that you please keep the following in mind:

  1. Like you I am a volunteer here. I limit my time on Wikipedia because there are other things I need to be doing or prefer to be doing. And I am even more restrained in the use of my time in response to an RFC that is not in my area of interest because, well, I do not find it as interesting. If you find that an editor does not give a point-by-point response to you, part of the reason might be that their time, like yours, is valuable, and they are judicious in how they use it.
  2. I find your recent editing behavior distracting, and I need you to give me space. I have decided that I am going stop watching Talk:Millenials immediately and that I am not going to be replying to any more of the questions you ask there. In the future please show some restraint in how you interact with me; you seem like an editor with good intentions, and I do not want to have to limit my interactions with you further.

-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 04:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I apologize about this. Was not my intention. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2018 (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).

Akhila3151996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked from logged out editing before from some various different IP addresses. This occurred through an old laptop at a different location hence different IP addeess) I don’t spend all my time on Wikipedia, but I feel that the particular user who made this complaint does (she spends her time going through old logs). I’m glad that you blocked the IP, but I feel that the user just wants to find something to accuse me of that she can use against me in an argument. I’ve also warned the IP as well, and I feel instead that you should shut down the IP.

Decline reason:

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

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Akhila3151996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for notifying me on the talk page about what I should address. The reason that I was blocked was due to account abuse from a similar IP address. However I feel that I will not get into that at the moment as that is not what I was told to address. Here are a few points that I will make: 1. I feel that blocking the shared IP will be necessary and that I myself will not make any disruptive edits. If you look at my edit log, I always cite everything I find accurately, and I find plenty of secondary sources for my citations as well. I've also said many times that my goal is to improve any Wikipedia page I edit to encyclopedic standards. 2.I understand what I have been blocked for and that in the future in order to prevent this from happening again I will always log into my account when editing on Wikipedia and two, I will refrain from making unconstructive edits. This is clearly Wikipedia policy. I will continue to make contributions that I feel are necessary. If any valid disagreements against my edits are brought up I will address those concerns seen on WP:CONSENSUS.Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only: the block has expired. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:29, 1 August 2018 (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.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Akhila3151996. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Akhila3151996. 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]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Times Now Navbharat (March 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DaxServer 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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
— DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Akhila3151996! 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! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akhila3151996&oldid=1141690992"