User talk:AbhishekChakravartty

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Pythagorean theorem because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pythagorean theorem, 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. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Time dilation with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Time dilation 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. DVdm (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Time dilation with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - with this edit, you induced an error in the article by changing content that is backed by four sources. With your next edit you removed essential content, backed by the same sources. If you have a problem with the content or the format of the article, you should go to the article talk page Talk:Time dilation, as was already explained to you here by user MelbourneStar. - DVdm (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Time dilation with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DVdm (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Time dilation. 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.

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. Ged UK 12:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Flight of the Navigator has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Flight of the Navigator was changed by AbhishekChakravartty (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891103 on 2014-06-18T03:50:26+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating an article with deleted content[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Relative velocity time dilation. Do not create new articles with content that is clearly not accepted in another article, as you did here. You were just blocked for repeatedly changing/adding this same content in the Time dilation article. Your next block will be longer than one week. - DVdm (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted[edit]

Speedy deletion of "Time dilation due to relative velocity"[edit]

A page you created, Time dilation due to relative velocity, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is recreation of content previously deleted following a deletion discussion.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. DVdm (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring, resume immediately the previous block expired. Once this 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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

In the 1986 movie, 'Flight of the Navigator', David Scott Freeman was subjectedto time dilation due to to relative velocity as he traveled forward in space at speeds far exceeding the speed of light. So it is correct to say 'time dilation due to relative velocity'

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:14, 18 June 2014 (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.

Note - It is indeed correct to say "time dilation due to relative velocity" in that article. It is however not correct to create an article with errorenous or incomplete content with your private version of time dilation and then point to that new article. It is also not a good idea to then repeatedly—and without any discussion—remove the link altogether, as the link to time dilation without the relative velocity qualification is perfectly sound. - DVdm (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

... for this and this. I made a mistake, thinking that you had removed the wikilink. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Flight of the Navigator, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Flight of the Navigator, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to San Francisco, 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. Thomas.W ^talk 12:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Time dilation with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Steven Bryant (theoretical physicist)[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 Steven Bryant (theoretical physicist) 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 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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. Samuel Tarling (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]