Adityasaxena.corp

Hello, Adityasaxena.corp, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Removing Speedy at Arjun(Actor)

Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for taking the time to create a page here. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the deletion tag you removed from Arjun(Actor). Please do not continue to remove the deletion tag, instead, if you disagree with the deletion, you can follow these steps:

1. Go to the page by clicking this link. Once there, select the button that says Click here to contest this speedy deletion.
2. This will take you to the talk page, where you can make your case by explaining why the page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. For further help about the deletion, you could contact the user who first placed the tag or a highly active user who is willing to help with deletion. This message was left by a bot, so please do not contact the bot about the deletion. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Arjun (Actor)

The article Arjun (Actor) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Arjun Feroz Khan

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.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Arjun Feroz Khan. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Arjun (Actor). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Arjun (Actor) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Sitush (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arjun

Please do not mess about with the Arjun articles - I am trying to sort out the mess that you have created. I realise that you are a new contributor and I do not blame you for the problems, but give it a few hours please and then everything will fall into place. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kalpana Saxena

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 Kalpana Saxena requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. 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.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lunar skylight

How about this link: [1]? Jim1138 (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you added this about a lava tube. Thought you might be interested in a more recent image. No need to reply. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Splitting of the moon

thanks for the information.. I wrote a long message but if you read it to the end it would be very nice..

about the rima rille, if a scholar says that the splitting is about this particular rille does it mean that he's 100% right? no, he might have made a mistake.. the splitting of the moon is not a fairy tale, it's mentioned in the quran, and is narrated largely with a complete chain of narrators, making it a must believe event (for muslims), since the quran also has more than 980 chains to the mouth of the prophet, making it the only book on earth connected to heavenly sources, at least this is what muslims believe.

now some would ask: if it's so widely reported and it's a correct event, why isn't there a crack all over the moon? the answer is: if there is a crack like that, everyone who sees it and doesn't believe will be tortured in this life before the other, and this is what happened to most societies before moses... so the pagans of mecca saw it and some of them didn't believe, they were humiliated and killed in battle (battle of badr) a few years later, they didn't live too long, and so it is for who sees a physical sign and doesn't believe.

in the quran chapter 17 verse 59: (And nothing has prevented Us from sending signs except that the former peoples denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel as a visible sign, but they wronged her. And We send not the signs except as to make them afraid (of destruction)). so when thamud denied they were obliterated, and so who denies physical )visible) signs.

but islam is the final message, so a physical sign doesn't work, but a sign that speaks to the mind is something that can be available generation after generation. This is why god doesn't make this physical sign very clear today, especially because the pagans of mecca asked for it personally, so it's for them, not anyone else.

and also since muslims believe god can do anything, he could simply have split the moon then ordered it to integrate again without physical remains, that is possible since muslims believe that god created science!!

but still, there are rilles on the moon that NASA doesn't know their source and how they formed... that's why i put them so that people see that there is something still unexplained on the moon. and there is nothing in the quran that says that the splitting is about the rima rille, it's just what a scholar said, and the scholar is not the prophet.

so it would be very nice if you put it back since i brought it all from NASA.. And I have to thank you again for the valuable information.

I think it's very interesting to show it to people so that they would think twice before saying that the prophet is a liar or before saying it's a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliSartawi (talk • contribs) 07:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but i wasn't forcing my believes into anyone, just saw information from NASA saying there are rilles with puzzles about their formation, and thought the reader should read an article that gives him at least a more complete picture. I'm not saying this rille is the one for sure, and i'm not saying nasa says this rille is the split, but the reader should know that there is a puzzle going on the moon, and the reference is from a NASA page and you can open the page and search the text i just copied it. it's your choice to accept the addition or not, i will not be saddened since i did what i could do. and thanks again for your time. AliSartawi (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE at Islamophobia

You are adding MORE detail to a fringe publicity stunt whose coverage has already been flagged as excessive?

I feel that the material I am adding is adequately sourced. Hence I feel it has a right to be their. This was an incident of world concern and is not limited to any particular region. I feel that you are protecting the article in a wrong manner

merely being sourced does not automatically mean must be included. the content of the article must be representative of the scholarly views of the subject Geller is most decidedly not scholarly and is a minority voice in her opinion; and coverage of her stunts should be treated in appropriate fashion (ie with coverage describing their fringy-ness and only in her own article). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer has nothing to do with Pamela Gellar. How do I remove the section by Mr Fischer. I dont see any references more credible against Islamophobia. For example consider Deepa Kumar. She is an author although her ideas have been criticized as well. But still the anti islamophobic voice is still there. Each person has criticism. No one criticized Pamela Gellar for being incorrect on stats on 19250 terrorist attacks. The only voice that has been raised is about political correctness.

Fisher has no more credibility than Geller. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adityasaxena.corp for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am friends with user Grgory Karn and yes we are living together in the same flat. We also have similar interests. Somehow both of us are new users and we had no intention on any foul play on Wikipedia. Sadly policies are not adequate and rules will often be unjust. I request the removal of the block.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia's policies are in place to prevent disruption to the project. In this case, you and your friend were blocked because of your efforts to coordinate in edit wars and discussions. Wikipedia works on consensus, and it becomes difficult to form a clear consensus when there are two users supporting each other in this manner. We also have no way of knowing if you are in fact separate people - it's quite possible that you are Gregory Karn as well as Aditya. Our policies are in place for good reason; they may not be wholly perfect, but blaming them for your block isn't going to get you unblocked, particularly when people have tried to explain those policies to you already. I may be willing to consider an unblock if the two of you agree to completely avoid each other on Wikipedia; this prevents the issues that led to your block, and is arguably acceptable even if you are just one person. To do so, though, I'll also need a commitment (from both of you) to avoid edit-warring, to engage in discussion with other editors more, and, when confronted about possible misconduct on your part(s), to consider how you could have improved your actions rather than foisting the blame on others. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am happy to commit that I will work separately from Gregory Karn for all purposes. --Aditya Saxena

Decline reason:

The fact that you and he (assuming that you are separate individuals) are, by your own admission below, colluding in trying to get your accounts unblocked indicates that you are not likely to be able to commit to working separately. Living in the same flat leaves ample opportunities for meatpuppetry, even if it isn't intended - the only viable way I can see you both being unblocked would be if you both committed to a voluntary sitewide interaction ban of sorts, meaning that neither of you could edit an article with which the other had been involved. At present, I see nothing to indicate that further collusion between these accounts will not occur. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

It is interesting that you made the exact same unusual mistake here that your flatmate made on his talk page, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe that you and he are actually two different people. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

unusual mistake? Well we are in this together are we not. What mistake is it anyways. --Aditya Saxena (talk)

The editing that left this string of coding "& # 1 2 6 ; & # 1 2 6 ; & # 1 2 6 ; & # 1 2 6 ;" in each of your unblock requests. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

its called "scotoma" - the mind sees what it wants to see.--Aditya Saxena (talk)

well apparently we are sitting together as both of us have been blocked. Its drinks and discussion. We are trying to solve this together anyways. Sorry. We still are friends. even though people block us from wikipedia. --Aditya Saxena (talk)

There's no visual malfunction on anybody's part here - you both incorrectly used the unblock template in exactly the same way. If you were working side by side to address your blocks, then yes it is plausible that you both made the same mistake, but please don't tell us we're imagining it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you appear to have misunderstood the meaning of "Scotoma" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Scotoma, nah I was dead on target. Its a very famous word --Aditya Saxena (talk) http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/scotomatous

Ah, I was unaware of definition 2 - thank you for the education. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I commit to to a voluntary sitewide interaction ban with gregory karn kindly revoke

Accept reason:

Unblock request accepted. This is conditional on the ongoing requirement that you do not edit any pages in any namespace that have previously been edited by User:Gregorykarn. Any intentional violation of this condition constitutes sufficient grounds for any administrator to re-instate an indefinite block. If you find that you have inadvertently violated this condition (for example, if you edit a page and subsequently discover that Gregory has edited it previously without your knowledge) you are expected to immediately redact your own edit as soon as this is pointed out to you; failure to do so will again result in a block.
At present I am only unblocking this account; if Gregory wants to continue editing he will need to post a new unblock request on his own talkpage and agree to the same terms. -Yunshui 雲‍水 12:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban seems reasonable - it is exactly what was suggested - so I'm happy to support unblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as they both commit to the restrictions proposed by Hersfold above, I will not object to unblocking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

do we know how this editor User:TheVforVendetta (with the sole edit history of creating a user page and then adding cites to a PRODed page created by one of the blocked accounts)fits into this? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

--Aditya Saxena (talk)Thanks

User:TheVforVendetta certainly looks suspicious - Aditya, have you any comment on Red Pen of Doom's question? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont know the user. --Aditya Saxena (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian Actors in Negative Roles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arjun and Rami Reddy (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) 11:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks the following correction will do. Rami Reddy (actor) Arjun (actor)--Aditya Saxena (talk)

Reblocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

User:TheVforVendetta is editing from the same computer you're using, and yet above you claim not to know who they are. This brings your claim that you are a separate person from User:Gregorykarn into serious question, and is evidence of further sockpuppetry. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Indian Actors in Negative Roles

The article Indian Actors in Negative Roles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not an encyclopedic article, no valid subject; most of the list is not supported by sources, but original research; creator of the article has been blocked indefinitely, cannot continue to improve this.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

The article you created or substantially edited has been nominated for deletion. To comment please visit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Actors in Negative Roles -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mahesh Anand

The article Mahesh Anand has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

subject is non notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Meatsgains (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Gajendra Chauhan

Hello Bhai How are you ? I saw that you created Gajendra Chauhan Wikipedia page .why dont you contribute some more there.Honi02 (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Kalpana Saxena for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kalpana Saxena 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/Kalpana Saxena 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.

Jupitus Smart 12:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)