User talk:Rahul duhan

Speedy deletion nomination of Rooh The Soul

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 Rooh The Soul requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Widr (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Widr (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right after your block expired, you restored the exact same content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your email

In response to your email of Jul 19, 2013 at 2:39 AM, where you said that I can't stop you and that you would edit from your mobile and other computers:

I don't care whether the content is true or not. You were blocked because you are edit warring and opposing the wishes of the community and that's what matters. How many times did you attempt to discuss things at talk pages? Zero. You just kept putting the content back and blanking various pages out of revenge.

If you stopped to discuss at the talk pages, you could have had things your way. But you didn't. You just kept trying to force the article into the way you wanted. That's why you got blocked.

If you try to edit as an IP or other sockpuppet, we will block those accounts. We are watching the article.

Your only avenue is to request an unblock by acknowledging what you've done and promising to follow community wishes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]