User talk:Benedictdilton

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Hello Benedictdilton, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. St Anselm (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benedictdilton, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Benedictdilton! 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)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mathew Samuel

Hello Benedictdilton,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mathew Samuel for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, 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. Thanks, Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Hello. I have temporarily protected the article so that nobody can edit it. Please take this opportunity to discuss your differences about the article on its talk page and to reach out to the wider community through the methods described at dispute resolution. Often, this will mean visiting a discussion board to ask others to weigh in. I would really recommend you begin by explaining why you feel the content warrants inclusion at the talk page. I also do have to caution you that repeatedly undoing somebody else's edits can create problems for you. We call this "edit warring" and it can lead to a block - almost certainly if you revert somebody more than three times in one day. While it can be frustrating, it is helpful to remember that little is urgent on Wikipedia, and that you do have time to get assistance if you think somebody is doing something wrong. (You can read the exceptions at WP:3RR.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help . I will look into this matter first thing tomorrow morning. Is there any way I can work for wikipedia on a voluntary basis.

Well, you are. :) All that's required to volunteer for Wikipedia is to just start working here. The more time you work here and the more experienced you become, the more areas may open up for you to do. There are a lot of different ways to help out, from fixing up articles and references to dealing with vandals and even helping correspond with people who write us to complain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will keep that in mind. Benedictdilton (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Church

There is no protection in force on this article. Please stop attempting to add protection templates. It's confusing for our readers. Tiderolls 20:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need of protection on page thats why I try to do that. Any way I will leave that job to the admins and moderators. But Being an admin of this site keep an eye on these articles Gospel for Asia, K. P. Yohannan, Believers Church. On a recent search on google about the person concerned here I came across a lot of blogs on the first 2 pages. It seems that all the following blogs were started on the same day. Even though the name of the authors are different I feel all the blogs are started by a same person and same people. Recently wikipedia.org was forced to closed down a discussion about the person involved here because of massive puppetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K._P._Yohannan. I feel these people shouldn't be allowed to abuse free resources like this. The blogs are

OK, Benedictdilton. I will add these articles to my watchlist. You need to understand that if I act editorially on these articles I will be prevented from acting administratively (see WP:INVOLVED). On a cursory examination it would appear that the articles are attracting some individuals that are disregarding Wikipedia policy. For the short term I can watch for any policy abuse, but if you have content concerns you should seek other counsel. If you need advice locating help, leave a message on my user talk as I will not be watching this page. Thanks for all your help on Wikipedia. Regards Tiderolls 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not censor.

Hello. I would like that would stop censoring my contributions in the article Gospel for Asia. I gave references of creditable sources, and official sources too. It may be that they do not suit your interests of raising your fingers against others, but Wikipedia neutrality guidelines establish that in a controversial topic such as this, both versions of the story should be described, and I think that in this case, especially, the version of the person involved should be presented. We must respect that and do not censor other's points of views to defend their integrity, whether you like them or not. Please consider the time that others may have spent researching about a topic. One person is not a convention. You should respect the work and research of others.--Goose friend (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I had nothing aganist you or Gospel For Asia. Its me who had posted most of the points aganist the controversy section with solid reference. Regarding changing the name of the section Yohannan's response to Contention is done with a good intention only. I felt if we kept that section people will start posting their version on all pages where there is controversy and wikipedia will start looking like a message board than encyclopedia. Benedictdilton (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello Benedictdilton, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Kochadaiyaan has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dravidian Hero 10:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you understood the copyviolation problem, but I don't believe that "Southmonitor.com" would be an acceptable source for wikipedia. I need to crosscheck this with senior editors. Please don't insert the site to any article until I have an answer for this open question. Thanks.-- Dravidian Hero 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website has been identified to be not compatible with our policy WP:RS. I will remove all references to this site.-- Dravidian Hero 16:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benedictdilton, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Dravidian Hero 22:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found out the reason which triggered such an investigation. It was a minor ignorance from the side of mine. I had made my side clear on the investigation page. The account that created the problem was created by a friend of mine who had done some edits on wiki earlier. Please check and let me know whether I had to provide more evidence or some thing like that. Benedictdilton (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply at the investigation page.-- Dravidian Hero 22:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption with Go Phightins?

I see that you've had a bit of trouble, and I've given my input at your SPI page. Dravidianhero seems to have good intentions; we run into a lot of vandals here on Wikipedia, but we are supposed to assume good faith, and I think that if you genuinely mean well, things will work out, eventually. My course is not yet live; it will be part of the WP:VIDTUT series, eventually. In the meantime, I suggest reading the WP:POLICIES, as - as you've already noticed - they can be lengthy and a bit confusing. Also, a good way to start learning...

How would you like to be placed on a waiting list for one of the best mentorship programs on Wikipedia? You will be guided through a series of lessons and tests that will teach you everything you need to know on Wikipedia to be successful. Go Phightins! is very experienced and will help you on the way. I highly recommend it as an adoptee himself! Check out User:Go Phightins!/Adopt for more info and/or contact GoP on his talk page or his e-mail. If you would like to be placed on the waiting list at for a great adoption, just let me and him know! Thanks! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Benedictdilton. You have new messages at Dravidianhero's talk page.
Message added 11:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dravidian Hero 11:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bangalore turf club.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! j⚛e decker ^talk 05:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Benedictdilton. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 09:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WilliamH (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Benedictdilton. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 14:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WilliamH (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jabalpur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bangalore turf club.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your AFD listings

You have created a large number of AFDs in a short amount of time, all with the exact same, boilerplate rationale: "No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement." I seriously doubt you have actually researched any of these topics, and you appear to instead be judging them purely on the current state of the article contra our policies and procedures. See WP:BEFORE (steps you are expected to take before requesting deletion), WP:PRESERVE (fixable content should be improved, not deleted for its current flaws). The first one I found, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jejeebhoy baronets, I was immediately able to find reliable sources verifying the topic; other articles you've nominated for deletion, such as this historic time zone or this real place, I was able to immediately confirm are verifiable subjects. This might be due to inexperience on your part, but seeing you post these in a flurry with Twinkle raises serious concerns that there might be something wrong here. postdlf (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't intend to create any problem.I was going through the Clean up list in India wiki project. I felt those articles are of no importance. My intention was to recommend articles with no reliable third party sources for deletion. There by clearing the huge clean up list in the project. I was working on the same from quiet some time. Pardon me for the trouble. I will be more careful in the future.Benedictdilton (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand now that we don't delete articles currently lacking sources if sources can be found? Have you read the policy links above? How do you now think the AFDs you started should be dealt with? postdlf (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly revert back what ever you feel inappropriate. I googled most of them. But never go for a google book search. I will keep that in mind for the future. I will be more careful before recommending any article for deletion discussion.Benedictdilton (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Adarsh Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram this is a housing colony. Being from Kerala and spend my childhood closer to that place I know it. There is no historical importance to the place and If such articles are entertained then every housing colony In kerala and every appartment complex will start appearing in wikipedia.I felt that place was not notable to be included in an encyclopedia. Thats why I recommended it for AFD. I will be more careful in the future.Benedictdilton (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked to close AFD on the following pages.

Indian Liberal Party Jejeebhoy baronets Calcutta time

Benedictdilton (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a housing colony is, but if it is not just a named populated place like a village, but more like an apartment complex or housing subdivision, then your Adarsh Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram AFD may have some merit, because no, we don't want articles on those unless they satisfy WP:GNG or a more specific notability guideline. Just make sure you modify your nomination for that article to give your more specific reasons and clarify that it's a notability concern. Posting a lot of AFDs at once with identical, generic rationales is generally frowned upon even apart from any failure to research them properly beforehand, think about your method as well as the substance of the nomination. I appreciate your response here and that you will be more careful in the future. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will make sure that I will never repeat the same mistake again and will be more careful with future AFD'S.Benedictdilton (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sathiyam tv

Hello Benedictdilton,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sathiyam tv for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, 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. Ypnypn (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sathiyam TV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Baahubali, 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. Raghusri 12:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Benedict. I know you're still working on the vandalism unit for Go Phightins! If you need any help, talk me or email me by clicking the bal or 27, respectively. Thank you. ~~JHUbal27 06:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will keep in touch Benedictdilton (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Adoption

Hello! I'm thrilled to note that you self-enrolled in my course, Wikipedia, at Education_Program:Western_Michigan_University/Wikipedia_(2013_Q2). If you are still interested in being a part of this, I would be thrilled to adopt you, as the course is now progressing. To do so, please visit User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption and add yourself to the waitlist (you will be approved shortly) in the format indicated (which includes notifying me at my talk page). If you are no longer interested, please un-enroll yourself from the course and notify me at my talk page. Thanks! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Camel Safari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All Saints College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiderolls 04:46, 19 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am using only one account in wikipedia and I don't use multiple accounts. If you want you can go for a check user. This block is not justified. One senior editor had reverted my edits and I asked him the reason for that on his talk page and I got blocked this is not justice. I edits I had done was supported by reliable sources. I once again want to assure you I am using only one account.

Decline reason:

If you really want to indulge our good faith I have two suggestions: a) wait out this block and don't, don't by any means suggest in your unblock requests that we use checkuser. If you read up on that tool you'll know it can't really be used to verify innocence of a sockpuppetry charge (it's far too easy to find a way around for us to trust it for that). — Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2013 (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.

Regarding my reversions

As I indicated in my edit summaries (e.g. here) because information about K. P. Yohanan's brother is not directly relevant to Believers Church.

As far as your conduct goes, this is unacceptable. You said "I was waiting for his response and he requested you to block me." I posted on User talk:Tide rolls after you had been blocked. Unless, of course, you are also User:Podimaladusthill, because I did hint that that user ought to be blocked. St Anselm (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K. P Yohannan's brother is one of the trustee of Gospel For Asia India. I can give reference .Benedictdilton (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bangalore turf club concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bangalore turf club, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]