User talk:S05081987

January 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lily Chakraborty with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dan653 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 16:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Satabdi

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 Satabdi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. Rob (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Chakraborty

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lily Chakraborty, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://dbpedia.org/resource/Lily_Chakraborty.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Please stop adding online profiles using user-generated content to the "sources" section of Lily Chakraborty. The BLP clean-up tag at the top of the page is noting the requirement for reliable secondary sources (sources such as newspapers that have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking). The websites you keep adding do not meet the criteria.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Lily Chakraborty. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. You are indiscriminately spamming the article with irrelevant external links. Again read what constitutes a reliable source and stop adding link spam to the article. It does not make the subject appear more notable by pasting the results of a google search into the external links section--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to add spam links to articles without regard to the applicability of the links, you will be blocked from editing.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Busselle, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Michael Busselle was changed by S05081987 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.868683 on 2014-09-05T00:01:16+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for the continued addition of inappropriate and extensive external links contrary to spam and external linking guidelines as well as your subsequent vandalism. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]