User talk:LodoVena

This is LodoVena's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aparna Yadav (February 8)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOLITICAN

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aparna Yadav and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Aparna Yadav, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LodoVena! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aparna Yadav (February 8)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that the appropriate notability criterion is satisfied. In particular, this draft does not appear to indicate that WP:NBIO is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NBIO for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

This draft does not make a credible claim of significance. This draft would be subject to speedy deletion in article space. If this draft is resubmitted in its current form or a similar form, it should be nominated for deletion.

This draft still does not satisfy political notability or general notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aparna Yadav and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Aparna Yadav, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tukde Tukde Gang. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tukde Tukde Gang shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Rana Ayyub has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 19:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this block is uncalled for also i am not able to understand why i am blocked. i have always used talk pages in case of any dispute. i would like to challange this block at ANI. RegentsPark are misusing there power in a distructive manner LodoVena (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice and warning[edit]

Most of your editing has been reverted. In your two days here you have violated our copyright policies by adding copyright text to articles, edited tendentiously, and been blocked for edit warring. Please make sure you follow the links I have now provided, and read them carefully. Also, listen to all the advice you've been given, for example here, in order to improve your editing. If it doesn't get any better, I'm afraid you will soon be either topic banned (follow that link too, it's very important!) from Indian politics, or indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 19:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

block is not proper you may have given a notice on my talk about any copyright voilation . i stiil dont know where i have violated copyright policy. if done in unknowingly , i will take it back LodoVena (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LodoVena, please read the block notice carefully. You were blocked for edit warring, not for copyright violations. If you want to see where you have violated the copyright policy, look at the history of the article linked to in the copyright violation warning above. You might also want to take a look at wikipedia's policies before continuing to edit. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

regent .....bichonen is required to answer this, why are you jumping in... anyway , i have never violated 3rr rule LodoVena (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas (February 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Dan arndt was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Dan arndt (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question[edit]

Hello, LodoVena! I'm LodoVena. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. LodoVena (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Republic TV, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on NDTV. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Newslinger talk 14:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial topic area alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 07:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this alert is for which page I that edited ?LodoVena (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got the alert because you have been editing biography articles, such as Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan and Yogi Adityanath. It applies to all biography articles. Bishonen | tålk 12:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

CM House attack[edit]

What happened here? first you added content. Now you removed? was it a mistake? Venkat TL (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a clear breach of their topic ban, outlined above. Bishonen, care to take a look? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Venkat TL and ScottishFinnishRadish. Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Glad to help. Thanks for the quick action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for a month for again violating your topic ban. If you have a good explanation for making these edits to an article about an Indian politician even though you're topic banned from Indian pages, please write it below. Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LodoVena. 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.

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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]