220.255.242.109

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of islands in Lakshadweep (February 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Taking Out The Trash was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of islands in Lakshadweep and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 220.255.242.109! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:List of islands in Lakshadweep has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of islands in Lakshadweep. Thanks! Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:List of islands in Lakshadweep has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of islands in Lakshadweep. Thanks! User4edits (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello, I'm CodeTalker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Indian National Army, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thank you. I have re-added the content after adding the citation. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Violence against Christians in India, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 14:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for 3 months for persistent tendentious editing with addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material in articles, including tendentious coatracking. Examples, out of many: Special:Diff/1184611884/1206709921, Special:Diff/1206591749, Special:Diff/1206444322, Special:Diff/1206702615. See also this SPI. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC).

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of islands in Lakshadweep (February 26)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The comment left by Zoglophie was: Too similar to existent topic Laccadive Islands. Please consider adding additional information there backed by WP:RS.

zoglophie^•talk• 16:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of academic and research institutes in Ladakh (June 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of academic and research institutes in Ladakh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of academic and research institutes in Ladakh (June 29)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Pbritti was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Scope is overly broad and must be reduced to either educational facilities or research institutes.

Pbritti (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti: Objection is frivolous and vague, please show the exact passage which substantiates your/his objection/rejection. Please no throwing the whole rule book without specific, no wasting time, no stonewalling and frustrating people. Not everyone is addicted to wikipedia, please make it a pleasant experience for non-addicts occasional editors without vague wikilawyering and without monopolising wikipedia. Please restore the article. Thanks. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I provided a succinct explanation twice. Again, the scope of your draft is overly broad; consider modifying it to only cover either universities or research institutions. There is nothing for me to restore, as the draft is still open, albeit rejected. If that changes, please let me know and I can petition for it to be restored. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti: again, please show exact passage in the guideline which says an article with "short list" cannot cover both academic institutes (universities) and research institutes. Your objection would have some weight if the list was excessively long (which this article is not) or you could substantiate it which prohibits academic and research institutes in same article. Without the exact passage in the guideline which prohibits this, it remains subjective and WP:DISRUPTIVE and wastes efforts, reduces productivity and collaboration, and frustrates needlessly. Please do not invent rules with subjective interpretations. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Anchoring a talk page section as "Time wasters" is a clever trick, but also uncivil. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Pbritti, this is such a convoluted WP:Wikilawyering to take an anchor tag and misinterpret it as personal attack. Synonym or wiki word for Time wasters is WP:DISRUPTIVE. This is absurd to take offense to established wiki policies. I have to hold you accountable, do not go on playing victim by being taking long convoluted way. Take a break from wiki and use WP:GOODFAITH. Please, make wiki a collaborative pleasant experience. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Warning

I understand that it's frustrating to not get your draft published, but that does not mean you get to attack the AFC reviewers. Your own explanation above, digging down on your personal attack, shows that it was quite deliberate. Please remove the offensive anchor and don't do something like that again, or you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC).

On second thoughts, I've removed the anchor myself. Don't do something like that again, or you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 09:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC).

Bishonen congratulation, for reinforcing wiki is not for normal human. And, its manipulated toxic hell for scratch-each-others-back-vipers (who know how to provoke, frustrate, run out, warn, drop warning bombs, over litigate, try to ban, etc). What about WP:Disruptive fr wasting, stalling, by inventing non-productive subjective rules and dropping warning bombs by being over zealous to earn some kinda future admin votes and choke wiki to death, wow?? I have to call it out this. Invent subjective rules (No, you did not warn the culprits for it), repeat (ok, gang behavior), frustrate (wow, exclusive gang of internet addicts who are toxic), and provoke by inventing offence (wow, wow, take the cake, network if working, your scratch-the-back manipulate-wiki-rules gang will be cause of the death of wiki, google needs more such toxic evidences for it to deindex or new tech to replace it. And both are on the way.) Just because I don't scratch back and have not created my own vipers-network by not standing for others toxic behavior who can warn or ban on my behalf, wow, this childness is escalating in more unpleasant way. I have to call it out. I wish I had time and inclination to drop warning bombs on your talk pages and expose inter-connected gang's behavior. Behave like normal pleasant welcoming human. All of you, including you, are part of what is wrong with wiki and why HUMANS DO NOT want to be part of wiki. Continue to toxic hog and monopolise and choke wiki to death. Introspect, humanise. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bishonen: the above and this indicate a failure to engage productively. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for egregious personal attacks and harassment, particularly this.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 02:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---