Rashkeqamar, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
Hi Rashkeqamar! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).
I noticed your recent edit to India does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Bahubali is a Telugu Film.
All its content is First Made in Telugu and then Dubbed to more than 5 languages like Tamil,malayalam,kannada,Hindi & English.
Sir you can't give credit to Tamil..It's Telugu film.Even if an actor acts in the film from other lang ,it don't become Tamil film..If that is the case.we should change for thousands of films.i.humbly request you to change the lang section from Telugu Tamil to only Telugu and delete tamil Ramtejvarma (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And re: this, if you want to limit the gross values of Hindi films to not include dubs, you need to seek consensus via discussion on the article's talk page. You are changing the status quo with no authority to do so and you have been reverted, so per WP:BRD, you need to seek consensus. Typically when we talk about worldwide gross, we're talking about all money made in theatres, and this would intuitively include dubs. When a new Marvel Avengers film is released in China, do you think they only show it in English? No, they dub it, and we include those figures. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this vandalism as well, since the source clearly says 730 crore worldwide, not 718. Also, you removed the Estimation template, which is not constructive. That belongs there per WT:ICTF consensus. Check archives. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this would be considered vandalism as well, since the source says 792 crore, not 743. If you vandalize an article again, your editing privileges will be revoked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this talk page edit, it is a very basic concept in the world of academia that you do not copy content from one place and paste it into another. This is something that most children learn in school. "Don't copy off your neighbor." "Don't copy from the encyclopedia." No different here. All prose is considered protected by copyright the moment it is "fixed" or published. See Berne convention. Copying content is intellectually dishonest and lazy, I personally have no tolerance for it, and it will absolutely result in the interruption of your editing privileges should you do it again. There are times when we can extract small excerpts under fair use, but there are rules to that as well. We typically format quotations using quote marks and we don't copy entire blocks of text as you did from this source. Familiarise yourself with our copyright policies. I've had to redact your comment. If you wish to re-frame your post, you will need to do so entirely in your own words. Should do so, please place your comment underneath the response from Rajan51. Do not touch the redacted template, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Cattle slaughter in India. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Tyler Durden(talk) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cattle slaughter in India. 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.
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; 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. The sources you cited do not directly support the content you have written. Your edits clearly constitute as WP:OR. Also, until there is WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, you are bound to maintain WP:STATUSQUO.Tyler Durden(talk) 18:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Rathod until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Coderzombie (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly wasn't a comment on the Congress so I've reverted you. Please don't do this sort of thing again. Doug Wellertalk 17:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Raskeqamar, you have added a contentious WP:LABEL at Burhan Wani, which was just rejected by RegentsPark. This is a sure fire way of inviting sanctions. I hope it was unintentional, and you will refrain from such edits in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this, subjective, hyperbolic terms like "blockbuster", "super hit", "failure" and "flop" are not welcome in this neutral encyclopedia. We care more about objective data, and when the majority of reliable sources have a general opinion on a film's performance, we still use neutral wording.
Re: this, what's significant about a five-day total? Noting the first day is reasonable. Noting the first weekend is reasonable. Noting the first week is reasonable. But five days? What's the point of that? Will you come back and note the 9 day total? The 17 day total? The 364 day total?
Re: this, we write for a global audience, so using abbreviations that are known only to Indians within a specific geographical region is not how we typically do business. You should be writing for a global audience and clarifying such abbreviations as you write. See WP:ABBREV. Should you wish to resubmit this content with the above in mind, that would be nice. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hi. Thanks, but see WP:LEAD20. Material sourced in the body of the article doesn't need sourcing in the lead. Sorry, WP:LEAD, can't fix that on my iPad as a drop down is in the way. Doug Wellertalk 06:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Doug Wellertalk 06:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sana Dua until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to Other Backward Castes does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop uploading copyrighted images to Commons and trying to use them here. It is against our policies (and not legal). Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Briana Blair, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasmin Scott until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions (biographies of living people)[edit]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
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 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. Gbawden (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristine Zedek until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You added poor quality content here and then after it was removed, you reinserted it with a deceptive summary "revert vandalism". THat is not on. Given that you are the one looking to add content, you have to discuss on the talk page to seek inclusion. —SpacemanSpiff 13:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding edits like this one: Please don't insert random citations to already-sourced content, if you are not adding any new content. The sentence already has three books by historians as references: there is no need to add a scroll.in article, which is not WP:HISTRS-compliant. utcursch | talk 15:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did this again here, here, and here. Citations are not required in the lead if the lead only summarizes the content already sourced in the article body. Please see WP:CITELEAD. utcursch | talk 16:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.14% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
I noticed your recent edit to Feroze Gandhi does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rashkeqamar, I appreciate your contributions to the article Virat Kohli, but it is always advisable to wait for the completion of the match to update statistics and relevant records. Also, please leave an edit summary after editing. It helps other editors to monitor the activity in an article. Thanks. MT TrainDiscuss 12:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rashkeqamar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello Rashkeqamar: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello Rashkeqamar: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tik Tik Tik (2017 film). Since you had some involvement with the Tik Tik Tik (2017 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Kailash29792(talk) 10:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of highest-grossing Indian films. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Diff: [1] The values you changed are no longer consistent with the references.[2][3] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
