edit

  Hello Cbijampan! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Sreejesh Nair, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.edubilla.com/award/national-film-awards/sreejesh-nair/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Sreejesh Nair saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! 116.68.100.51 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Inzpira

edit
 

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 Inzpira 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 company, corporation or organization that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Mvqr (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Inzpira for deletion

edit
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inzpira 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/Inzpira 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.

Mvqr (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

February 2022

edit

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Inzpira, you may be blocked from editing. CUPIDICAE💕 15:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please don't remove speedy deletion tags from a page you have created yourself, but if you believe you have good reasons to think the speedy deletion nomination was mistaken then explain why on the relevant talk page. This applies whether or not you are logged in to the account you used to create the page. JBW (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply


It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Furthermore, the material published on the website of a business or other organisation is virtually never suitable for a Wikipedia article about that organisation, even on the rare occasions when copyright is not a problem, because it is almost written in a promotional way. JBW (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Blocked for sockpuppetry

edit
 
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cbijampan. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2022 (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).

Cbijampan (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This is a blatant and outrageous blame on my account. You can see the contributions I have made in past and none of it is associated with the account Arathimenon13 as u mentioned Cbijampan (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

I am convinced by the behavioral evidence noted at the SPI. And getting confrontational in your first request doesn't look good. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2022 (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.