User talk:AstuteFlicker

Welcome!

Hi Amanatadverse17! I noticed your contributions to List of Delhi Public School Society schools and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Marquardtika (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Delhi Public School, Dooars (July 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Does not pass WP:NSCHOOL

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Delhi Public School, Dooars and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Qcne (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amanatadverse17! Having an article draft 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! Qcne (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Delhi Public School, Dooars (July 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Delhi Public School, Dooars and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Delhi Public School, Dooars (July 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

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.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Delhi Public School, Dooars and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Public School, Dooars moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Delhi Public School, Dooars. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you please tell me atleast how many citation we need to provide and specifically on which topics.. Amanatadverse17 (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanatadverse17, to start off, you have linked the YouTube channel of that school. Do you work there or in any way related with the school?

Source Analysis:

YouTube channels are not reliable sources and do not contribute towards notability.
The sources Jagran and Ayudh appear to be more like press releases and blog posts.
The article from The Statesman may be reliable AFAIK.
Listing websites such as saras.cbse.gov.in, dpsdooars.com, cbse.gov.in, dpsfamily.org and ncert.nic.in do not contribute towards notability.

You would require in-depth coverage in reliable and published third-party sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you are trying to say but may I please know atleast how many citations do we need to provide as I have also seen many school's wikipedia pages with only 3 to 4 citations. Thank you for your valuable Time. Amanatadverse17 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you must have missed my initial question. Do you work there or have any connection with the school? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for it. I am a Student there in that School. Amanatadverse17 (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Delhi Public School, Dooars (August 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

See WP:NSCHOOL

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Delhi Public School, Dooars and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Qcne (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could you please elaborate a bit what you wanna say? And also atleast how many citations we need to provide. Amanatadverse17 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanatadverse17 we'd usually need a minimum of three independent sources. Qcne (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Delhi Public School, Dooars (August 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Zero evidence of notability.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Delhi Public School, Dooars and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Grazing I have provided 3 - 4 notable websites (as told to me by another editor QCNE) talking about the school, excluding the school's own website. So what's the problem also if there's some problem please explain it to me in detail also please let me know how to fullfil the notability criteria by giving some example. Amanatadverse17 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft cites the following sources:

The school's own website
Ditto
Can't check this at the moment as it returns 502 error, but from memory it doesn't provide significant coverage of the subject
Primary source (government website)
Primary, non-reliable and non-independent source
Ditto

None of these counts towards notability per WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ajay Kumar Jha (August 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by 331dot were:

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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The language about him being "martyred", "dedicated", "tragedy", etc. is not a neutral point of view, no matter how sad an event this is, and needs to be removed. Also see WP:1E; it may be that the event that resulted in his death may merit an article, but not him personally.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ajay Kumar Jha and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

331dot (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Delhi Public School, Dooars (August 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

Resubmitted without any meaningful improvement, previous decline still stands. If the sources aren't significantly improved before resubmission, this draft is likely to be rejected outright.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Delhi Public School, Dooars and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Delhi Public School, Dooars

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

A tag has been placed on Draft:Delhi Public School, Dooars, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Kashyap moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Manish Kashyap, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kumar Jha moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ajay Kumar Jha, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Delhi Public School, Dooars (August 12)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Aviram7 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

--- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 12:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Manish Kashyap (August 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Deb were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Manish Kashyap and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Deb (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ajay Kumar Jha (August 12)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Deb was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Please read the guidelines on notability. Deb (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deb (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Manish Kashyap (August 13)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Deb was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: No significant improvements have been made since the last review failed.

Deb (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Manish Kashyap

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

A tag has been placed on Draft:Manish Kashyap, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. --- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 08:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Khan Sir, you may be blocked from editing. The unsourced material you added is also blatantly promotional. Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ashish Chanchlani (youtuber) (August 28)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Bonadea was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The only new thing since previous AfDs, AfC submissions, recreations, and saltings (see User:Bonadea/Long term disruption#Ashish Chanchlani for a list of 13 previous titles in article and draftspace) is a trivial mention in a short press release about another Youtuber.

bonadea contributions talk 15:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. 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. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use AI generated text in your communication. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 20:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shehzad Poonawalla (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Idoghor Melody was:

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

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shehzad Poonawalla (October 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jannatulbaqi was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello AstuteFlicker. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:AstuteFlicker. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=AstuteFlicker|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. bonadea contributions talk 14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear bonadea,

Thank you for your message. I would like to clarify that I am not receiving any compensation, direct or indirect, for my edits related to this topic or any others on Wikipedia. My contributions are entirely voluntary. It's just that I am new to Wikipedia and trying to learn new things. Out of interest and passion, I am trying to create and improve articles on topics that don't already exist.

I appreciate your guidance and will continue to follow Wikipedia's guidelines as I learn.

Regards, AstuteFlicker (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! AstuteFlicker, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi AstuteFlicker! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Why do some edits show up quickly in search engines while others take time?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello AstuteFlicker! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help with converting and replacing a logo file, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Ankit Baiyanpuria has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ankit Baiyanpuria. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ankit Baiyanpuria (October 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ankit Baiyanpuria and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Ankit Baiyanpuria

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

A tag has been placed on Draft:Ankit Baiyanpuria, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. GPL93 (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Mumbai stampede moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 2024 Mumbai stampede. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I respectfully request an unblock regarding my recent edits, especially on the article draft for Draft:Ankit Baiyanpuria. My intent was to highlight his notability, as he has received significant attention and is highly notable in India, partly due to his work alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi, particularly in the realm of fitness promotion and social values. A fellow editor mentioned that I cited too many press conferences, but most of my references were focused on articles covering his collaborations with the Prime Minister, rather than direct promotional material. After my draft was nominated for deletion, I also contested the decision on the draft's talk page, explaining the same thing and significance of these references. I now understand that my editing style might have seemed promotional, and if this came across as a violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines, I apologize. I am continuously learning and am committed to following all Wikipedia standards for neutrality and verifiability. I kindly ask for a second chance to contribute constructively, with a renewed focus on improving my approach. Thank you for considering my request. AstuteFlicker (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to think the problem is primarily a single article. It isn't. You've received literally months of warnings and have continued editing inappropriately. I see no benefit to Wikipedia in lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I’m truly sorry for all the disruption caused by my edits. I now see how important it is to follow Wikipedia's guidelines closely and keep content neutral. I admit that, despite my efforts to improve, I might have missed the mark and made edits inappropriately in promotional tone despite several warning. I assure that I will be more careful from the next time and look after the consideration of my fellow editors more carefully. I'm learning from this experience and am committed to better understanding Wikipedia’s standards. If given another chance, I’ll make sure to edit carefully and seek guidance as needed to contribute constructively. Thank you for considering my request.

Decline reason:

Given your previous communication style on this page, it's clear that you did not write this appeal yourself. Reviewing admins want to see a WP:GAB-compliant appeal written by you, not a chatbot. Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:52, 31 October 2024 (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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Well, I think I made the mistake which I shouldn’t have made and would have listened to the considerations of my fellow editors more carefully and now I have got my lesson and I am continuously learning from these experiences. I have did some good works also, I know not many but at a good amount. I have fixed many typo’s etc of many articles, Expanded some and also Created Some. I have also done some additional things like Translating some article from English to Hindi Wikipedia and vice versa etc. And I am committed to contribute more. Moreover, I will try to understand to the wikipedia’s guidelines more closely. I am continuously learning new things everyday out of interest and passion, I have learnt a lot from this incident too and that is why sincerely asking for one more opportunity. Also, I will try to improve myself on writing articles in a encyclopedic tone rather than writing it in a promotional tone. I apologise from the bottom of my heart assuring that each and everything written here will be implemented undoubtedly. Hope that you would understand and consider my request. Thank You Regards

Accept reason:

Per conditions agreed below (article creation via draft/AfC only, no direct mainspace creation.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Copied

Could Someone Please politely reach out to Seraphimblade or review my block request. I am being waiting for more than 3 days for the review, I know it can take much more time But, a editor has copied my whole draft on which I was working Draft: Shehzad Poonawalla under the guidance of Administrator Valereee and bonadea because the topic was restricted to Administrators only. They advised me to not to create the article now as it’s doesn’t fullfill the wikipedia’s notability criteria right now. So, I left that draft intact which is still available and the discussion is also available on the talk page of the Draft. But yesterday on November 2, A editor who has joined wikipedia 12 days ago has directly created the draft on Shehzad Poonawalla adding politician at the last so that he/she can directly create the article copying 98% of my draft (even the references) i don’t know what’s this called on Wikipedia or how to take action on this.. All I know is currently I am helpless because I can't even reach out to any administrator because of getting blocked. A editor Idoghor Melody who previously declined the AfC request of my draft did review the other Page also but left it intact and not even moved it to Draft. I want to reach out to a administrator immediately probably Valereee But I can’t because even my IP is blocked from editing so I can't go the talk page of any admin. I am blocked for the first time and don’t know much about what to do. It will be a great help if someone could help me in this situation and also help or guide me to get unblocked or could forward my issue to any Administrator or the Adminstrator’s Noticeboard. I don’t think this is fair with any Editor because it takes a lots of time and effort to prepare one Article. Please Help :( AstuteFlicker (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming your talk page with unblock requests won't help. Wikipedia has a limited amount of admins, and they will get to you in due time. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Know and I understand wikipedia has limited admins but please Try to understand. I ain’t spamming. It’s okay if I don’t get unblocked rn, I have just asked for advise as I am blocked for the first time. My Main Issue is the unfairness practiced with me which I have discussed above because I can’t go to any admin for help. If I wasn’t blocked i could have done something but I can’t and I am not asking for Unblock I am asking to convey my message to some admin because this is Unfair. AstuteFlicker (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Bonadea :)

Senior Editors like you inspire New Editors like me to contribute with enthusiasm and dedication..Currently I am blocked else I would have Thanked You in your talk page.

Thanks once again

Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello AstuteFlicker! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help regarding a Draft, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

It’s been Quite a long time since I was fully blocked from editing on Wikipedia. This was the first time for me encountering such thing. So, I couldn't understand the reason of getting blocked and my appeal was declined. Second time, I got Afraid and because of which I did another mistake of using AI ChatBot (with a good intention) thinking that it would help me convey my mistake better. But, I was wrong, my appeal was again declined and I totally accept my mistake. Till then my third request hasn't been reviewed. I feel helpless because I don't have any idea about what to do next, neither I can go to any forum or talk pages for advice or anything like that. Because of getting completely blocked I also can't demonstrate my ability to edit constructively by using edit requests And that's why I am completely blank about what to do next because no one is responding, there must be some way or some rule or something like that to overcome this but I don't know because this is my first time and I am completely blocked. Now when I know I admit that I have made mistakes which I shouldn't have made also previously I had not always taken the advices of my senior editors seriously. I admit and accept all my mistakes which I have done previously and ensure that it won't be repeated in future. I will try to understand Wikipedia guideline more closely and also try to write articles in a encyclopaedic tone rather than writing it in a promotional tone which I did earlier. But even after knowing at which part I have to improve and what mistakes have done in past I have NO idea about what to do their must be some way could someone help me with that. And it's not that I have only done mistakes I have done some good works also not many but some like fixing grammatical errors of many articles, expanding and creating some articles and translating some articles from English to Hindi Wikipedia and vice versa. I think this is because of MY MISTAKE that the administrators responsible for this are not having a look on my appeal because I have already wasted their some amount of time 2 times previously but now it's been quite a long amount of time and I accept all my mistakes and ensure to not repeat it again in future. I would like to humbly request Yamla or Ponyo or anyone else to review my request once again and ATLEAST give me a way or let me know how can I prove my ability to edit constructively once again. Additionally, I wasn't getting any response so out of frustration, I had raised the same issue in the UTRS and had taken image of the appeal key but now when I go to check the status the appeal key doesn't work I don't know why. also I haven't received any email regarding that and don't know how to recover it. Therefore I would also like to ask for help for this issue also if possible as I don't know how to recover the appeal key. But the main thing is I have to know that what can I do to prove myself because currently I have no idea and getting no response from anywhere. Hoping my request would be considered and I will be provided with the second chance and guidance about what to do. Thank You AstuteFlicker (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AF, have you considered editing on the wiki for your first language? Valereee (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I Do sometimes, that’s what I’ve mentioned above also..Though not very much. I edit on both the Wikipedia. But, Primarily on English.

If I prove my editing ability on some other Wikipedia, will that affect this block on this english Wikipedia? Or is there any other way please let me know. I don’t have any Idea about what to do..And I totally accept that all this happened because of my fault. AstuteFlicker (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Productive editing on another project can help show that you are well-intentioned. The editing at that wiki would need to be to en.wiki standards rather than the standards of that wiki, which are often very different from en.wiki. Here on en.wiki, content needs to be well-sourced and non-promotional in nature.

There would be some remaining concerns about your ability to write articles from scratch. We don't want articles created using AI, for instance, which Draft:2024 Mumbai stampede and Draft:Ashish Chanchlani (youtuber) feel like to me. And we don't want articles created to promote the article subject, which both Chanchlani and Draft:Shehzad_Poonawalla feel like to me. Writing Wikipedia articles from scratch as a new editor, especially one whose first language is not English, is really not all that easy. I suspect most admins would require you to submit drafts through the AfC process rather than creating them in article space directly as a condition of unblock. Valereee (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Valereee

Thank You so much for your valuable time..

As Currently I have no Idea about what to do next I feel as a senior editor and admin you know far better than me and your advise must be the best for me and I am always READY to cope with it to prove and improve myself on all the aspects because I think I have made mistakes and slowly and gradually learning from my mistakes.

But I would honestly like to clarify some things. First, I would like to clarify that it's not that I don't have any knowledge of English or I can't contribute to en.wiki because it's not my native language. Studying in a English Medium institution I can atleast contribute to above average level of English on en.wiki. I just felt that you are misunderstanding me thinking that I don't know English and I am only able to edit on en.wiki using only a Chat Bot. Let me clarify it's not like that I Have never or may be very occasionally used a Chat Bot to create or edit on live Articles. While I do admit that I have subsequently used ChatBot while communicating on talk pages when I felt I have to convey my words with a good level of English and in Pages like Draft:2024 Mumbai stampede only for the Info Box and everything else's written by me or sometimes copied directly from the source but not from ChatBot. Secondly, I had just expanded the Draft:Ashish Chanchlani (youtuber) article (without using ChatBot) and submitted it for AfC thinking that he's very prominent YouTuber in India and must be notable. But, I didn't create that Article. Same for the Poonawalla article I thought he's also a prominent personality and must be notable.

Lastly, Thank You very much once again for spending your valuable time here and providing me with such a Valuable advise. AstuteFlicker (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I wasn't trying to indicate your level of English wasn't sufficient to contribute to enwiki. Your English is very good, and definitely fine for any number of types of contributions. But we really never want you to use AI to edit an article. If you use it for talk page discussions, we might overlook that, but we'd literally rather have you write everything in your own words and ask a native speaker to give it a quick copyedit for you before you submit a draft if you think it needs it. Or even just submit as is, a good draft with sufficient sourcing should really not be declined at AfC simply because there are minor language issues. We really, really don't want AI in articles, ever. Valereee (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand and would definitely ensure that in future and accordingly follow everything for sure. I have learnt many things from here and will be implementing it all on my editing skills and would follow what you have said.

May I Please know the next step as to what I have to do next.. AstuteFlicker (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, what is your feeling about a conditional unblock requiring drafts submitted through AfC? Valereee (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could be a reasonable solution. AstuteFlicker, would you be willing to agree to that? You would still be able to edit existing mainspace articles, but for creation of any new one (including turning a redirect into an article), you would need to write a draft and put it through AfC instead of just creating it in mainspace yourself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Seraphimblade,

Thank You for your valuable time here.

I am Indeed ready to do it..and have already agreed to it above.

But I have some queries which I would like to ask you, before getting blocked I had some projects in my mind about article of some villages, as you know villages have very less references compared to City or a Town but according to wikipedia guidelines geographic entities like villages or cites are generally considered notable and so I think that it would be difficult to get it accepted to the main article space via AfC. So, what could be a possible solution to it. Secondly, When and how will I get to know that Now I am capable to create articles directly with a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia policies.

Rest Everything Assured!!

Thank You Again AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd do the village/town articles same way as anything else. So, if you wanted to create an article about Example Village, you would create that at Draft:Example Village, and then when you think it's ready to go, submit that for AfC review. If the AfC reviewer agrees that it's ready to go to mainspace (which, as you said, is a pretty low bar on populated places), they'll move it over to mainspace after accepting it. Once it's in mainspace, you can then continue to edit it normally, if you want to. Does that clear things up? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Understood, Thank You AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked your account, upon the above agreed conditions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to thank you and specially thank Valereee for spending your both valuable time here. I will try my Best. AstuteFlicker (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello AstuteFlicker! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Citation, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2024 Mumbai stampede has been accepted

2024 Mumbai stampede, which 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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 help desk. 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

qcne (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Your WP:ANI#Ignorant_Behaviour_of_this_User is likely to be closed without further discussion unless you perform the mandatory notification described at the top of that page. --Yamla (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yamla

Thank You for the response. If I am not wrong you must be talking about the notice on the User's talk page, Is it So? If Yes, then I have put the notice on his talk page. Is there anything else you are trying to say? AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly it. Thanks for doing this. --Yamla (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, I noticed about your article, 2024 mumbai stampede and would like to ask if I can rename it to Mumbai Bandra Terminus Stampede? Thanks. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cooldudeseven7

I appreciate your request. But according to WP:NCE, events on Wikipedia has to be named starting with the year of the Incident and hence, It is a standard way of naming Wikipedia's articles on events. AstuteFlicker (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. How about 2024 Mumbai Bandra Terminus Stampede? I suggest this as the current name isn't the most descriptive at the moment and may block a future, other mumbai stampede. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I appreciate but at this moment, I don't think the name change is required for this article as the previous articles on the previous stampedes in Mumbai are named in the same order like 2014 Mumbai stampede and 2017 Mumbai stampede. Also, the name you are proposing seems very long. Hence, I don't think we need a name change for this article currently.

BTW, Thanks for spending your valuable time here

Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I respect that reason. I did not see the other articles. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]