Jump to content

User talk:AKS.9955/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Rollback granted

Hi AKS.9955. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal talk 21:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Neeru Bajwa

How do i edit a page if i am the source itself, i have pictures of Neeru Bajwa weedings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.76.88 (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you made a mistake

You worship the beast and promote its perception. You're probably not fully human and should leave further editing endeavors to us Adamic/Aryan kind. Welcome to the world of dreams- your hell- my heaven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.32.148 (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugh Dennis

I'm not sure what knowledge you have of Hugh Dennis that I do not. Your rollback of my edit to include his brother seems to have no justification. Hugh Dennis does have a brother, whose name is John David Dennis, and he is the UK ambassador to Angola. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgwm (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Please read the link I posted above. You are free to contribute like anyone else. Cheers Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • AKS.9955. Well, I certainly did follow your link above, but I admit I did not read every single word. Does it say anywhere (because I am unable to find it), that a contribution (innocuous as mine clearly was), that has no source cited is invalid, and should be removed as quickly as possiblePgwm (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)? And are you an official within the Wikipedia organization, or just a self-styled upholder of standards?
  • The answer that you should have had the courage to give to my question was emphatically "No". There is nothing to suggest that Wikipedia endorses summary removal of material simply because it has no citation. Please, challenge if you like, but do others the courtesy of checking before you undo legitimate non-contentious material that someone else has bothered to include, for the benefit of others. My mood is quite immaterial, by the way. Pgwm (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have never, in 30 years in the computer industry, been accused of "spamming", and your use of the word is inappropriate. I am sorry I caused you offence - but the greater offence is to summarily undo other people's work. Let this be the end to our exchange. Pgwm (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Pgwm (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pgwm, I don't care how many years doing what have you spent; not relevant to this discussion. You hardly have SIX edits on Wikipedia (check here) and I can see that you already have become subject matter expert. Let me tell this once and forever; you are welcome to contribute on Wikipedia but you have to follow and respect the guidelines. Please don't message me again unless you have some civility and something constructive to say. You need any help, let me know and I will be glad to assist but don't act smart. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • At the risk of being accused again of spamming you, I have to answer you rather unworthy sarcasm. I asked to end this conversation, but it appears you now want finally to mock and belittle me for my very few edits. Fewer still for your unhelpful intervention! Wikipedia is not a better place for your undoing of legitimate work, you know.

Over and out (please). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgwm (talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Natural-Born-Citizen clause

People are reverting my edits, if they have good cause, OK, however,I supported my facts with exact quotes. Whereas they were picking and choosing pieces of the text in an obvious attempt to subvert the actual meaning. I posted the whole quote and facts supporting it. Why would you remove that?

I have researched this topic for 13 years. There is a vibe on that page of political agenda. I don't see a place for political agenda on a site that should be fact based. There is much on that page that is just flat wrong. Much of it has nothing to do with the definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen". Much of it are quotes with nothing more than opinions blurted out or " misspoken" , then copied and posted aparently to fog the issue.

The founders of the US Constitution defined the term clearly. Now politicians are trying to justify interpreting facts differently then what is written in black and white text and signed by the same people that wrote the Constitution. That is a clear sign of a political agenda.

Being sent to read a law professors paper on the subject, only to see that he is trying to explain all the opinions and interpretations when he should be clearly stating the facts. All the while using John McCain as his subject matter clearly reeks of skillfull political angles by burying the facts in a dense fog of opinionated muck.

When I come here I want to read facts and only the facts.

Picking and choosing which facts to post and leaving out extremely obvious and important sections of articles, picking and choosing only what supports what they want people to believe....that's crazy. Convoluted facts are not facts at all. Wikipedia should be no place for that garbage.

BTW, I hope I am responding to you correctly, I read your instructions but I did not understand them due to it containg unfamiliar discriptors such as "talkback" ect. If I'm doing it incorrectly please forgive me and give me the guidance necessary to do it correctly.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by USCentrist (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@USCentrist:, you are quoting the 1790 law in the section that mentions it. I'm hoping you also noticed the part of that section that notes that the Naturalization Act of 1795 superseded the 1790 law. If you go to the article on the 1795 act you'll note that it repeals the 1790 law. In otherwords, it has zero effect today. None. Zilch.
Also, the comments that various editors have made about WP:OR, or original research, and the need for sourcing doesn't refer to your quote of the 1790 law, but to the conclusions you are drawing from them. That also must come from reliable sources. Given that the 1790 law has been wiped from US legal authority a mere 5 years after it was passed, I doubt you'll find such a source to support your statements. If you do, however, you're welcome to discuss adding something on the article talk page. Please do read the article on reliable sources I linked to though - blogs and various conspiracy driven websites don't meet the criteria. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ravensfire:, I understand what you are saying, however, I believe my point is being lost in a foggy sea of convoluted logic on that page. If you step back from all those opinions and interpretations of what the term Natural Born Citizen "means" , it's no where near as complicated as all that. I will try this again.
If you search for a meaning of a term, the very best place to go is to the original authors of the term. Which in this case are our founding fathers. Regardless of what was put in, taken out, or what was superseded, your search for knowledge remains the same. That being the meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen that is still being used in other parts of the document. To find that you search for the earliest occurrence of the definition that can be found being used by the original authors. It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference if that section was superseded or not because you seek solely the proper definition in the proper context from the original authors for ultimate accuracy. In this case the 1790 document contains that definition. Ignoring this is the same as cutting the definition of any word out of a dictionary while leaving the word itself in other areas of the dictionary. Because the definition is no longer there does not mean the word has no definition. It's mearly a temporarily lost to you definition. You then go to the library and pull another dictionary or research the terms origin to find the proper definition.
In this case our forefathers are very clear. Their definition can clearly be found in that 1790 text. 100% positive. It's just like going back in a time machine and asking them face to face. The answer would be the same because they are the ones that wrote it. Trying to do it in another manner such as " interpretation " is mearly a political tool to do an end run around a fact. Especially when the definition is as stone cold clear as this.
That entire page really needs to be cleaned out. All those opinions have no place among facts. Quotes from people who haven't done the proper research is keeping people from the facts they seek and really has no place on Wikipedia. IMHO That entire page only requires one paragraph to explain.
  • Again my apologys if I'm replying to this incorrectly. I'm still trying to figure this out. Honestly this board seams a bit overly complicated to use right now. I'm sure I'll catch on though in time.
@Weazie:Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate the guidance.

OMG someone undid it again... I give up aparently politics trumps facts on Wikipedia..... Some one needs to do something about this. The page is unusable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USCentrist (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, AKS.9955. You have new messages at Robwent's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ORG

A7 is a mixed kettle of fish. It's originally for not (credibly...) claimed significant people or groups of people (but when talking to an author, refer to notability as claims to significance merely stave off CSD - notability is going to be needed for prod and AfD...). ORG is specifically for organisations and the particular organisation should be named. Ideas about organisation don't come in under A7, and nor do products of organisations. The people part of A7 is fairly clear, but the other bits are often misunderstood. Animals have to be named - Gertie the Acrobatic Sloth would come under A7, but Hattus fedora wouldn't as it's a species of rodent. (That one is a very blatant hoax anyway, but probably Gertie would be too...) Web content includes YouTube and MMPORG stuff, web sites and anything you do through a browser and an ISP. Browsers themselves and other installed software do not come into A7. Events must be organised, and spontaneous riots don't come in. (Actually, most 'spontaneous' riots ARE organised carefully, but you have to be certain that they are.) OK? CSD is a minefield inside a maze (but so is quite a bit of behind the scenes Wikipedia). Don't be afraid to ask. Some admins have rather more inclusive ideas than others, so I'll suggest me or GBfan for middle of the road, and DGG for stricter interpretations. (There are even stricter ones, but they rarely or never venture into the murky waters of CSD, preferring to philosophise on the banks... This is a sore point with me on the Talk page of the cat for CSD.) Peridon (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

William Red Fish

Hello, I have many credible sources, seeming as how I am the person that this is about. I'm in this band and we are just trying to expand our online reach, one of the attempts being us creating our own biography's for our fans. What do I need to do to keep this page up? Ftr4life (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC) William Laurence Fish

Im not trying to advertise, Im educating people on this band. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOW THESE THINGS ABOUT THE MEMBERS so instead of us having to take the time out of our extremely busy days to answer ever single question all of our 25,000 fans have, they can come here and find out themselves. Im pretty sure youre just trying to look for reasons to get articles off Wikipedia. There is nothing fake or untrue about this article, and if you want to get real technical, Im not doing ANYTHING wrong because this is the band wiki account and I DIDNT TYPE A WORD OF THIS ARTICLE minus the citations, as you demanded. Ftr4life (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ftr4life: Pardon the interruption, but technically, if it's the band's Wikipedia account, you're in violation of the username policy and related prohibition against shared accounts.
That said, if the band keeps getting these questions, it should get itself a website. Wikipedia is not a webhost; it's an encyclopedia, and bands don't get articles until they become notable bands.
Please see also the essay Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Best regards —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ftr4life: Another interruption. Hasn't the band got a website or a Facebook page where this info can be given? Wikipedia is NOT free web space or another form of social media. We aren't looking just to get articles off Wikipedia. What we are doing is making sure that the ones here fit our rules and requirements. Remember that there is NO right to have an article here. Peridon (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Chris Diaz business

thank you. am willing to be guided by seasoned editors to help improve this articleDeibrek (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your articles

I randomly reviewed some of your recently created articles (stubs), although they're articles on notable topics but the written style seemed to be very poor to me. For example, Vivek Chaand Sehgal introduction section was unsourced and the content of the "early life" section does not reflect the lead title. You even created an empty sections, what I considered inappropriate. I decided not to point this out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled#AKS.9955 to avoid any embarrassment. I suggest you should review your articles again to fix the blunders. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello Wikic¤l¤gy. Thanks for your comment. On 10th Feb, Delhi assembly results were announced and the same day I had written articles for 40 new MLAs (with in-use tag on them). Tags have been removed but I am still expanding the articles one by one. You can see it here, here, here, here, here and here. I am sure that none of the people I have written about fail WP:BLP or WP:BIO. As far as Vivek Chaand Sehgal is concerned, nothing is unsourced but I did make a mistake there of adding Forbes source to the wrong section. The reference belong to the lead section and I will move it right away. Trust this explains. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, AKS.9955. You have new messages at USCentrist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarpin

Don't delete please!Muhammad Nafi (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Please don't aspire deletion the word of SARPIN in this Wikipedia. It's our Indonesian slang of language and really meaningful for our country. Thanks a lot for your understanding.

My best Regards Muhammad Nafi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Nafi (talk • contribs) 07:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Dear Muhammad Nafi, thanks for your message and for your contribution to Wikipedia. Please note that I don't have the authority to delete any article on Wikipedia and have merely recommended it for deletion as it does not comply with Wikipedia policy. Please note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (read WP:NAD for details). Happy editing. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A7 of Ms. Perry Cabo

Hello, just to advise you that pages like that, which contain only attacks or negative information about apparently living people should be marked as G10 not A7. Valenciano (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A note on deletions

Namaste,
Please note that WP:AfD is only for nominating articles whose deletion may be controversial. For non-controversial articles such as Snita, which are obviously meant to be deleted, please nominate them for speedy deletion instead. If the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, use WP:Proposed deletion. In case of Snita, WP:CSD#A7 applies. AfD involves creating a page for discussing the deletion which is not necessary for obvious cases. Thank you. SD0001 (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise for Mohammad Mehroz Saqib: there was no need for an AFD for this. It might be a good idea to take a break from creating new AFD discussions for a while, until you're more familiar with WP:CSD policy. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your rationale at AfDs

Thanks for your contributions, Wikipedia appreciates your help but unfortunately one or more of your rationale for articles deletion at AfDs seemed not to be appropriates to me, such as this AfD and this AfD. Subject of an article cannot failsWP:What Wikipedia is not in the case of this your rationale here. Please see-Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maleke where i initially replied you. I strongly suggest that you make no further nomination until you are familiar with policies. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello Wikic¤l¤gy, thanks for your feedback. If I understood you correctly; you are talking about two nominations by me; viz 1) This and 2) This. 1) I had already marked the article as tentative delete where you assumed I am talking about the subject of the article; which I was not. Yes, I should have been more specific in the reason. 2) When did I ever mention the subject of the article as the reason? All I said was that the song lyrics comprise the entire article and have mentioned the apt reason i.e. WP:NOTLYRICS.
I am sure everyone knows that not 100% of the nominations OR the reasons given by the nominator can be accurate and that's exactly the point of Articles for discussion. If the nomination is found correct then the article is deleted and v.v. Yes, you pointed out and I have made a note of that but till the time I am not vandalizing articles, spamming or acting out of personal reasons, I don't think I will stop editing on Wikipedia; AfD included. All actions are a learning for all of us; both me and you included. I appreciate your feedback and I take it for what its worth but my humble request to you is lets not get into fault finding mission here. Trust me message will be taken in the right spirit. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't take it too personal, I never requested that you should stop editing on wikipedia neither am I insinuating that you should not comment at AfD. I only suggested that you should take a break from creating deletion discussion for a while, until you're familiar with basic policies. Dai Pritchard made similar suggestion earlier in a discussion I never participated. However, there is a relationship between the "subject" of an article and "content" of an article. The content of an article depends on the subject of an article but if otherwise, then the article becomes an "Hoax" and you will tag it appropriately for speedy deletion not to take it to AfD for discussion. WP:AfD is only for nominating articles whose deletion may be controversial particularly in terms of the subject notability. It is often wrong to say that an article fails a policy for example, it is wrong to say that an article fails WP:BLP, WP:What Wikipedia is not or WP:OR. But content or wikipedia editor can violate any of them. Don't use the word Fails instead use violate for policy-based rationale. Only use fails for guideline-based rational. For example fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NMUSIC, WP:ACTOR and so on. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Information

  • Dear Wikic¤l¤gy & SD0001, further to your messages above, I would like to assure you that I am working on improving on the area. I need little information from you (could not find it myself). Is there a way (apart from looking at my contribution list) to find out which articles have I nominated for CSD and AfD? That way I will be able to review what I have done in the past and where I need to improve. Please advice. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about the pages you tagged wrongly, you only need to read and understand WP:CSD to nominate an article for speedy deletion. Use this tool to review your AfDs. Happy editing! :) Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I also suggest that you go to WP:Twinkle/Preferences and turn on the CSD log. (Just tick the option "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations".) This creates a subpage in your userspace that would automatically log all the future CSD nominations that you make using Twinkle. It will not show the nominations made until now, though. You can also turn on the PROD log that similarly logs the PROD nominations. Note that a log entry is created only if you make a nomination using Twinkle. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Wikic¤l¤gy & SD0001, this really helps. I checked the AfD log and now I can see how many of the nominations were changed to speedy delete. Whilst 90% of the nominations held merit, AfD perhaps increased work for people like you and admins. I have now started using CSD in apt situations and hope that helps. Thanks once again. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

James W. Curran

Hello David Eppstein, I had placed CSD tag on this article which was removed by you citing "dean at a major university is enough of a claim of significance to escape A7". I am little confused here and need your help. I read WP:PROF and point 6 in this section states that, quote "....Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Heads of institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 6; their heads may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines." unquote. Can you please help me in understanding where did I get this wrong? May thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

He also probably passes WP:PROF#C1, and definitely passes #3 and #5. But that's not the point. The point is that the bar for notability that would pass an AfD is much higher than the bar for A7 deletion. You should only be tagging articles for A7 when there is absolutely no credible claim of significance in the article (example: "Fred is a student at Santa Carla High School, and loves playing tuba in the band. He has been nominated for a Nobel prize.") The article as you nominated it had the following claims, any one of which would be sufficient to prevent A7 deletion: dean of a school, holder of an endowed chair, led the AIDS division of the CDC, featured in a well known book, "considered to be a leader and expert in the field of HIV/AIDS", fellow of three societies, author of a high number of publications, member national academy of science, "Surgeon General's Medal of Excellence", "John Snow Award". This is not the sort of article you should be giving this tag to. It is ridiculously far beyond the parameters of A7. At best, you are wasting people's time by causing them to pay attention and untag it. At worst, you are biting the author of the article and causing new content on a worthy subject to be removed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Chris Diaz (businessman)

I have edited the subject article to improve it. Have a look at the edited article.Deibrek (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Deibrek, It is not upto me, I just made the nomination for deletion. Discussion for deletion is taking place here. You can leave your comments there. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Kikichugirl. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of Australian Ambassadors to Vietnam, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. — kikichugirl speak up! 08:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, I didn't mean that. I was just thinking of the related AfDs all closed as delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Mauritius and I was going to take a second look, but I forget to do that... Pooey. I'll go mark it as reviewed again. Also, please don't use talkback - pings work fine and don't spam the notifications. Thanks! — kikichugirl speak up! 08:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Service award

This editor is a
Yeoman Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

I hereby recognize your 1 year of service and 4000+ edits with this service award. You may put it on your user page, or there are other forms of the award at WP:SERVICE. Congratuations! Skyerise (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Behat (Assembly constituency)

Hi, AKS. I'm Manoj. I contribute mainly on Hindi Wiki. We are running a project on Indian Elections over there & in connection to that I happened to see this exhaustive page created by you. First of all, sincere appreciation for such an effort. I just wanted to know if you already have data arranged in excel sheets? If so, then we can save our effort & can also use the same for creating pages on Hindi Wiki (I use AWB on hi). We have exhaustive data of Uttarakhand (With bye-elections) & Jharkhand (except bye-elections), in case it can be of help to you. I request you to please visit our project page. Let's explore where we can save duplication of efforts. Few wikipedians from Punjabi & Bhojpuri community also are collaborating in this project. Regards.--Manoj Khurana (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy on the draw?

Nominating referenced article stubs immediately on creation is a stupid use of time. Just sayin' Skyerise (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the adjective was applied to the phrase "use of time", which is not a person and therefore is not uncivil. I don't appreciate editors who attempt to silence me by speedying my articles and attempting to dictate how I can write (speak). Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In the future, I suggest you take the time to visit the user page of an article creator to get some idea of their competence before instantly speeding their article starts. Skyerise (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if you don't take the time to check out the people involved, then you are doing your task improperly (too fast) and are not benefitting Wikipedia. And that's why we're here, right? To benefit Wikipedia? Don't forget, there's no deadline!!! Skyerise (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Skyerise, please assume good faith. I think good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. In addition, Wikipedia's articles are independent of their creator. Although I agreed with you that the article is not a candidate for speedy deletion and it could be annoying to seeing ones article inappropriately nominated for deletion, yet you need to be polite while dealing with such issues.
Gosh! You cannot be serious!! What can you say about the AfD stat of this veteran wikipedian??? Am afraid you don't know that AfD is not a place where your votes must always match with the results. Your comments here suggests that you will game the AfD, just for your votes to match the result in other to deceive other editors that you are familiar with policy. The fact that many of your earlier nominations matched with the result at AfD is the product of the fact that you brought the articles that met CSD to AfD thereby wasting other editor's precious time but not an indication that you are familiar with policy. My concerns centered on your rationale for deletion and your inappropriately tagging of articles for speedy deletion, a concern that was also raised by David Eppstein and Dai Pritchard. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi AKS.9955, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm X 02:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited S.A. Devshah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu. 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) 08:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Banu, makeup artist

You can withdraw your Afd if you are convinced that the notability is affirmed. నిజానికి (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello dear, Thank you for making the changes to the page saurabh pandey. looks like you have deleted a true fact about this person. here is the link of his interview which you can use for cite http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/interviews/hot-malesaurabh-pande . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhworld1 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry dear. Its not me but yes the user name is saurabhworld!. you can edit the page. cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhworld1 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Help

Dear AKS.9955 Thank you for guiding me and giving me tip on contributing to wikipedia. As I am a beginner and wish to make new reliable pages. I would need your help in creating a few pages. will be happy if you could give me a hand. Need to make a page on the company White Light Army Pictures and a indo-pak venture movie made by them Tujh Se Hee Raabta Saurabhworld 14:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhworld1 (talk • contribs)

  • Dear Saurabhworld1, I saw White Light Army Pictures briefly few days ago and if my memory serves right, then the company does not qualify requirements. Please read WP:ORG and should my understanding be wrong, please go ahead and write an article; with proper sources. As far as Tujh Se Hee Raabta is concerned, I think it is properly covered. I found IMDb profile about the film and I think it qualifies Films. As a matter of fact, when I was writing about Zara Barring, I noticed this movie and this is in my pending list of articles to be written. Even if you don't write, the article about the movie, I might do it in the near future. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you AKS.9955 that will be great. will go thru all guidelines and see if page for White Light Army Pictures can be done. as it is available on Internet Movie Database also. Will go through the guidelines. When ever I get time to make the page for Tujh Se Hee Raabta I will keep you posted and will appreciate your support as you are a experienced wikipedian. Saurabhworld 15:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)talk

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AKS.9955/Archive_2&oldid=1141587652"