User talk:Abhi/Archive 2

Neo.

You are User:Neo. correct? Your temp account This account and that image was upleaded by Your temp account. You need to clearly mark this as an alternate account of your Neo. account. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review

Just to let you know, the review for Palak Muchhal is up. --1ST7 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif

Heyy, are you sure about that? She has like eight siblings. How come we're only adding Isabella? Shouldn't we add them all then? AB01 (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wait..nvm, you reverted it already AB01 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

First I thought she has only one sister. Looks that she has many sisters. Inappropriate to mention only one. Mentioning all will clutter infobox. Hence I reverted myself. Abhi (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought..thanks for that! AB01 (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, I linked the available image from Commons. I guess I was fooled by the name and added the wrong picture. It was a honest mistake; not vandalism.Viva La Persistence|Surprise me 14:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Mistakes do happens sometime. It's OK. The image uploader claims to be actress Nisha Agarwal herself which is almost impossible. Also any fan can find that pic is not of her. I have tagged that image for deletion. Abhi (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unnao gold treasure incident may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] (vol 4), published in 1878, states that Sangrampur was founded by a [Bais Rajputs|Bais Rajput]] Abhay Chand Bais. He fought a fierce battle there, hence named it Sangrampur. In his 1862 work,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Unnao gold treasure incident

Your addition of new material might be acceptable, but you reverted every single grammatical correction that was already made to the 19th century section. You ungrammatically switched hanged back to hung, removed necessary articles (the/a) and removed a clarify tag that has to be answered. If you want to attempt to add new material without reverting [Unnao gold treasure incident these corrections], feel free to do so. But if you simply revert again to an ungrammatical version I will report you for edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Read my comment on the talk page of the article. If you don't reverse your last reversion I will report you to be blocked for edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

a? Intend to block a editor who created and wrote whole article? And after fixing some grammatical errors of 'a' and 'the', what will you do with article? The story is developing. Are you interested in subject to expand article and update it for readers? Please go ahead. Let me see how you file report. I will explain my edits there tomorrow. Good Night. Abhi (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please try to work collaboratively

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. 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 try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.

Your edit summary usage seems to imply that you think you own the article or at least that your changes/submissions are more important than anyone else's. This is definitely not the case: no one, no matter how much they have contributed to a particular article, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of that article.

Furthermore, just because the topic of an article is related to India, and is being improved by editors from India, doesn't mean that proper English usage is optional. Your additions must use all of the necessary words (articles and prepositions where needed) and use acceptable spelling and grammatical tense. If your additions do not meet these criteria, someone will fix -- or remove -- them. If an editor is trying to correct grammar mistakes, and they cannot understand the meaning of the sentence, they pretty much have to remove it - we can't have sentences or paragraphs in articles which cannot be understood.

I suggest that you try to relax and allow others to work collaboratively with you. Perhaps you could try drafting your additions in your sandbox so that you can add everything all at once, and not run into difficulty with people trying to edit at the same time you are.

Please note that repeatedly re-inserting any material into an article is considered edit warring, and you may be blocked from editing if you do this. It doesn't matter who is "right", who "started it", or anything else. If someone removes your changes, discuss the issue on the article talk page before making the same change to the article over and over again. —Darkwind (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

He fixed some grammar.[1] The story is developing and I am constantly searching and adding info to the article.[2] [3] [4] I updated my own contents. Do you call this revert of his edit?

• He reverted my edits, removed lot of contents to maintain his grammar correction.[5] So I reverted his edit.[6]

• At 21:34 he posted 3rr warning on my talkpage.[7] Then just 2 minutes after he reverted my edit 2nd time.[8]

• I checked his talkpage. It seems he has habit of pushing 3rr to limit to scare new users(it looks I am new, but I am not).[9] My ANI experience has taught me that admins don't involve in content dispute or before 3RR. So as per BRD, I went ahead and reverted his edit.[10]

• The article is created by me and almost whole article is written by me. The user misrepresented this fact to say that I am claiming ownership. Shouldn't I update article because of scare of making some grammatical mistakes?

• I didn't cross any 3rr. The user posted 3rr template on my talkpage and went on to file report. Admins should not act on 'first come, first serve basis'. If I had crossed 3rr, you should have blocked me. If there was no emergency, you should have waited for my side. This warning is based on unilateral report by the user and posted in haste. Abhi (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misconception that violating 3RR is the only way you can be edit warring. You don't have to violate 3RR to be in the wrong, but there's a reason I only left you a message and didn't block you -- you looked like you would have continued into an edit war, but hadn't reached that point yet.

Second, an edit summary like "I said, don't remove contents for 'a' and 'the'. The contents u r trying to restore are also my own contents. I need to expand article" practically scream "this editor is feeling possessive about this article". I'd have asked you to be careful about article "ownership" anyway, had I seen that edit summary on my own.

Third, regarding the comment you left on my user talk page, about the large paragraph that the other editor removed as "incomprehensible". When I read the material he removed, I had no idea what the point of those few sentences were or what encyclopedic meaning they were trying to get across. In the sense of "conveyed no particular meaning", then "incomprehensible" is a rude but accurate description. I would have said something more like "I do not see the point of these few sentences" or something like that.

Fourth, "Indian English" still has to be comprehensible to other speakers of English, or it isn't English anymore. If omitted words, misspellings, or odd sentence structure change the meaning of what you're trying to say, or make it difficult to understand, then it has to be fixed. I implore you not to take offense at this.

Finally, please step back and breathe. In the grand scheme of things, the fact that I left you the message above is not a big deal -- it's not like you're on an official "warning list" or anything like that, I just wanted to remind you that other people can and will edit your contributions, and in most cases, you need to relax and let them do it. —Darkwind (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unnao gold treasure incident, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Congress Party and Shard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Unnao gold treasure incident

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Krrish 3: Discussion.

Hi Abhi, I am here to discuss with you this revert. Actually Boxoffice figures for Indian films are updated with the help of this website - http://www.boxofficeindia.com/. Now in absence of figures by BOI.com newspaper dailies can be used, as chosen by editors through WP:CONSENSUS held back in time. Now this article published by Financial Times is a reliable source in general but here it cites Taran Adarsh, who as might not know heads a info-tainment site called Bollywoodhungama.com. This site and the site owner being involved with the industry for a long time might be good for gossip mongers but not for BO collections. The reason for saying so being they are the PR associates of films and get paid for posting exaggerated figures' as since they get lot of visitors, this helps the film gain popularity among cinema goers. The news of Krrish 3 reaching the coveted 200 crore in the makers mind will be of extremely helping since nowadays a films quality is judged by its BO collection and not in terms of its cinematic brilliance and it would definitely create a buzz in the peoples mind as they'll think Oh look, its the third film to make 200 crores, it should be good. We must watch it too! resulting in a film amassing crores in a country where people die of hunger. Zeeyanwiki will tell you about it more, as will User talk:Injun Gone Loco#August 2013, User talk:Sohambanerjee1998/Archive2#Re:Koimoi Reputed or not.3F, User talk:Zeeyanketu#Boxofficeindia.com. Following one of Wikipedia's five pillars I want to remain neutral and don't want to turn wikipedia into a WP:SOAPBOX. Finally please understand the situation first instead of calling a person a vandal and please I repeat please Assume good-faith. Soham Banerjee 08:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I just checked this BOI.com article. It gives only India figures and that too of Hindi version. In movie articles we always give worldwide box office figures. If worldwide box office figures are given in RS, it should be mentioned. I am not interested in conspiracy theories and original research about Taran Adarsh. If reliable sources quote him, then his figures are reliable at least for that movie. Abhi (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

BH, koimoi and indicine are giving same figures i.e 190 cr for India.[11][12][13] 3 sites can't fake box office figures. Abhi (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The sites are get paid. Sohambanerjee1998 11:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Collections are added after the end of theatrical run. As you might know theatrical run has not ended.   Sohambanerjee1998   12:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Added where? To articles? No, users update box office collection daily of new movies. For example, watch Thor: The Dark World which is released just 2 days ago. Also 'they are paid' argument does not hold water on wiki. I can also argue that boxofficeindia.com is paid by opponents of Hrithik. But that's meaningless. We go by RS and that's all. Abhi (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't template me for Gods sake, I am regular! I have not made a single revert until now and Edit warring qualifies after 3 reverts in a single day. Plus don't edit until the discussion is over. Neither will I but this a WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Consensus can change but that does not mean it should.   Sohambanerjee1998   14:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

pls explain on article talkpage why other sources are unreliable. Better to discuss there. Abhi (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't then please go through this section I have stated it once. If you're a hardcore Hrithik fan, its advised that you don't edit the article.   Sohambanerjee1998   18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Your recent editing history at Krrish 3 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Discuss and refrain from making personal attacks.   Sohambanerjee1998   18:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm Geniac. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Munmun Dutta, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Spam?

I object to the characterization of my edit as "spam". If there are policy reasons for excluding the EL, so be it. But the subject is the co-founder of Blue Cross of Hyderabad, so it seems like a natural inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Turns out that we have an article on the organization, so I wikilinked the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The site is under renovation. It doesn't show anything related to the subject. Also you didn't mention in your edit what this site is all about. Link was not formated. So I thought that it is spam. Anyway, once the site is up, you can add it if the link give some more info about the subject. Sorry. Abhi (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is under renovation. As are probalby a million other ELs. But I don't think it would be a productive use of my time to monitor it until it has been removated. If it contained nothing other thana renovvation notice, I would agree that inclusion might be questioned. However, it does contain information related to the subject—it lists times, contact information and a link to a newsletter. Why would I mention in my edit what the site is all about? It is obviously about the Blue Cross of Hyderabad which was co-founded by the subject of the article. You are right that there was a problem in the format. But that doesn't make it spam. Please be more careful. No response necessary. Now that I have wikilinked it, I'm going to move on.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You should look at your edit subjectively. The article is about an actress and your link mentions timing of 'clinic'. User will get confused what relation of an actress is with some 'clinic' as the site doesn't give any info. When ext link doesn't give any info about subject, we treat it as spam. Next time please be careful. Thanks. Abhi (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Unnao gold treasure incident) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Unnao gold treasure incident, Abhi!

Wikipedia editor In Transit just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for bringing up this article. Please add more info...

To reply, leave a comment on In Transit's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Dating for MiszaBot. Abhi (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Dating for MiszaBot. Abhi (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Process

Hi. I've noticed you made a few comments on WP:RFP/C - many of which are not helpful. Please note that you need to pay close attention to the processes involved. RFPC has standardized comments which are intended to convey specific messages. As well, nobody should EVER be posting below a "done" or "not done" - those are not intended for discussion. If you want to speak directly to the editor, then go to their own talkpage. However; in your most recent note on that page, a new user wanted to "add their profile" - which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. You told them to make 10 edits and wait four days - which is the wrong thing to tell someone who wants to do something against the purpose of Wikipedia. Instead, go to their talkpage, welcome them with an appropriate welcome template, and tell them about the userpage policy. ES&L 12:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts to remove unofficial websites from the pages of celebrities. Much appreciated. Iamola123 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! Beautiful barnstar. Will keep trying to keep articles clean. Abhi (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

On wikipedia, users generally paste such warning as a safeguard when he prepare himself for edit war. Unfortunately, such notices impresses dumb admins, not all admins. Pls see article talkpage. Abhi (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A word of advice

Greetings. I just saw your recent comment on the 2002 riots page, and noticed that you claimed harassment to be the reason for your leaving. It did not take much investigation to discover your topic ban under your previous ID, and that a significant factor in your ban was the insistence on making sweeping allegations of POV. Keeping that in mind, I would suggest that you stick to making specific content changes to the article, and specific content related changes on the talk. There are significant issues with the article, and I look forward to working with you to improve it. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shaina NC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craftsman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shaina NC, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eid and National Democratic Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Abhi/Archive 2. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲_水 14:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

POV editing and Lesbian Association of India

NEVER blank an article. NEVER lie about an article not being referenced for the reason of the PROD when it was referenced before your blanking. The references are valid. Stop your POV editing on LGBT articles. References do not need to be peer reviewed. I suggest you step away from any LGBT articles. After the totally inexcusable actions on Lesbian Association of India, I'm not inclined to give you any leeway. Bgwhite (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I came to your page from here. I'm here to respond to the situation above. You blanked the page. Read WP:BLANK. That is what you have done wrong. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Wikipedia talk: Arbitration/Requests, you may be blocked from editing. Your recent post, and other recent posts, have the quality of a rant. I concur with any recommendation that you be blocked from editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources are required

re your edit to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah - it is the WP:BURDEN of the person restoring content to provide inline citations to reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

and that is twice now that you have done so. stop it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So u got enlightened and restored image. Now you may continue your POV editing. I am not interested. Abhi (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

i am glad you were so insistent on having a second pic of the cast in the article that you edit-warred to reinsert not only the duplicative pic but multiple unsourced claims along with it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Pic is not duplicative. Other pic shows few actors. My pic shows almost whole cast. And users often use 'unsourced' word as magic to vanish even most obvious info. That's vandalism through WP:GAME which goes against spirit of wikipedia. But even admins do it and I can't block them. So pls continue. Abhi (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

if the claims are "obvious" then providing a reliable source as required by policy to restore the content will be a trivial matter. if its not trivial then your accusations of masses of people wantonly GAMEing the system are WP:AGF violations of the worst kind.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Content about living people

You MUST strictly follow the WP:BLP rules. The current allegations MUST not be over emphasized in the manner in which you are presenting them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't insert that content, @Anupmehra: did and I don't see any over emphasization. Abhi (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You are re-inserting it- there is no difference. WP:BLP is exempt from WP:3RR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To enlighten you, revert of vandalism in BLP may be exempt from 3RR. You are reverting sourced content added by experienced user by throwing wiki policies randomly. Abhi (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AjitKhan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AjitKhan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shaina NC

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shaina NC you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shaina NC

The article Shaina NC you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Shaina NC for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Photography workshop

Hello, Abhi. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

PawełMM (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

GAR for Palak Muchhal

Palak Muchhal, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Om Prakash.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Om Prakash.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PriyaTendulkar.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PriyaTendulkar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Guru-Dutt.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Guru-Dutt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AmjadKhan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AmjadKhan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vimi.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vimi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AmjadKhan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AmjadKhan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)