User talk:Info.apsharma

This is Info.apsharma's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Info.apsharma! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aditya Prakash Sharma (December 23)

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 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:Aditya Prakash Sharma 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) 13:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Info.apsharma! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Right to Recall Party (February 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Akevsharma 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 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:Right to Recall Party 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.

Akevsharma (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta 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/Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Misterrrrr (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Aditya Prakash Sharma

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:Aditya Prakash Sharma, 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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Right to Recall Party (March 26)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Right to Recall Party instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.

If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.

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:Right to Recall Party 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta 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/Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katt Bafla has been accepted

Katt Bafla, 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!

Karnataka (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Jatin1219 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jatin1219. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 please see my request of unblok Info.apsharma (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, all the allegations made to block me as sock puppet/meet puppet are not true because :1. As written in the Sock Puppet Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jatin1219/Archive, it is said that there is a difference of 15 days between the date of creation of the alleged account Jatin1219 and my account, so in my opinion there may be many accounts on Wikipedia which were created on the same day, so all of them are Sock Puppets, it can't be possible. :2. Another thing was said that I used the photo uploaded by the said account in my article, so for this I would like to say that the photo kept on commons can be used, so in this work also I have not violated any rule. :3. It was said that I have put my views in the discussion to maintain the article made on Hindi Wikipedia, then it is the duty of an editor to keep views in the discussion and I did not disrespect any editor or reviewer in that discussion. I just kept my statement and followed the rules. :4. It has been said that I have edited articles on Gujarat assembly elections, so I am an editor and I have edited many other articles too, so editing does not prove that it is a sock puppet. :5. It has been said that the said account participated and voted in the deletion discussion of Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rahul_Chimanbhai_Mehta, so if any editor comes and comments in any article discussion, its a right of that editor and I would like to say that a discussion is started only for editors so that they can give their opinion so said account expressed his views in that discussion. so commenting in a discussion can't prove a sock puppet. Also in the second deletion discussion of Rahul ChimanBhai Mehta article Many reviewers have agreed in the second deletion discussion of Rahul ChimanBhai Mehta article that it should not be deleted and should be drafted, so those who speak in favor of not deleting my article should be sock puppets, if it is not possible, then It does not prove that the alleged account is a sock puppet. :5. Along with this it was also said that the method of signing the said account and my account is the same, so in this regard I would like to say that I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I did not pay attention to the procedures like making signature because I didn't have to need it. I haven't read in any of the Wikipedia rules that if you don't make signature then you can't do editing. :I have always worked to make Wikipedia better and I have followed all the rules and guidelines made by Wikipedia. I have never disrespected any editor or reviewer in any discussion on Wikipedia. I'm a serious editor and I'm working to contribute as much as possible to Wikipedia. I am working towards making new articles, and i assured you i will follow each and every guideline of Wikipedia in future also, so it is a humble request to the administrators not to block me and allow me to continue editing, thanks.

Decline reason:

(1) That is a mixture of total irrelevances, such as whether or not you have "disrespected" anyone, and missing the point, such as arguing that "commenting in a discussion can't prove a sock puppet" (nobody said it could). (2) There is plenty of evidence that you have abused several accounts, not all of it mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation. JBW (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2023 (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.

Info.apsharma (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta

Hello, Info.apsharma. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta

Hello, Info.apsharma. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]