Hello, SuryaHanuman. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Rajbeer singh, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Rajbeer singh to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.
If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.
Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Rajbeer singh for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Wgolf (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SuryaHanuman, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
Hi SuryaHanuman! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Rajbeer Singh.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Rajbeer Singh.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 01:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Rajbeer Singh 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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. SuperMarioMan 07:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Rajbeer Singh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ChanderForYou 16:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Rajbeer Singh. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. While we all take pride in our work, you explicitly consented to allow anyone to edit anything you write on wikipedia, in keeping with its policies. I recommend you carefully read what others have written and address their concerns. The alternative, edit-warring will lead to an instantaneous block, so you will definitely not accomplish whatever your goals are that way. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rajbeer Singh. 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.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
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. DMacks (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. No evidence this is his own confirmed official website, rather than some fansite.DMacks (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:DMacks, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Kinut/c 17:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, to respond to the actual comment you posted on DMacks' talk page: yes, removing the link in question is appropriate per WP:EL and related guidelines. Also, if it's not an official site, why were you calling it one in your edits? --Kinut/c 17:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Rajbeer Singh, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. ChanderForYou 03:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rajbeer Singh, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ChanderForYou 10:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Rajbeer Singh. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. While we all take pride in our work, you explicitly consented to allow anyone to edit anything you write on wikipedia, in keeping with its policies. I recommend you carefully read what others have written and address their concerns. The alternative, edit-warring will lead to an instantaneous block, so you will definitely not accomplish whatever your goals are that way. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. No evidence this is his own confirmed official website, rather than some fansite. DMacks (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Wgolf. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiva Thejus 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. Thanks! Wgolf (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)