User talk:220.255.242.109: Difference between revisions

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:

This submission has been procedurally declined as it appears to contain close paraphrasing. Please rewrite the text in your own words, and then resubmit for further evaluation.

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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:

I’m not seeing sufficient precedence for this sort of article. I think you should consider slightly altering the scope of this list to align with similar lists. For a good example of what this scope should look like, see List of colleges and universities in Colorado.

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Hello, 220.255.242.109. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of islands in Lakshadweep, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 220.255.242.109. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, “List of academic and research institutes in Ladakh“.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 220.255.242.109. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, “List of islands in Lakshadweep“.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m JeffSpaceman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Banjara seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to attempt to make disruptive edits to Wikipedia and trigger the edit filter, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Sundaresvarar Temple. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don’ts, you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link (“blue link“) in each entry
  • Only add a “red link” if used in existing articles, and include a “blue link” to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. ~Liance^talk 00:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m ScrabbleTiles. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop indiscriminately adding references to water disputes in unrelated pages. — Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, these rivers are all part of IWT, some of these already have citations, I will added citations where citations are missing as citations mentions the articles. Thanks. 220.255.242.109 (talk)

Maybe. But that has been so since 1960. There is no urgent need to refer to it everywhere unless it becomes relevant in some development. — Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Worldbruce. An edit that you recently made to Bangladesh–India border seemed to be generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Worldbruce (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology) in Wikipedia pages without carefully reviewing them, such as those you made to Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Worldbruce (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AlphaBetaGamma were:  The comment the reviewer left was:

Might be generated by AI.

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.

AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Jannatulbaqi. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Anti-Mosque campaigning in India have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Baqi:) (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please highlight specific edits you found disruptive to the Michel Danino article? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 12:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding Romani people to the “See also” section of articles relating to India. This has been hashed out before (see User talk:Oilcocaine). If you continue to do this, you may be blocked from editing. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willondon, ok, thanks for highlighting. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Mana Pass, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:

This draft’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Absurdum4242 was:

This draft’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The article is looking good, and I would have passed it, but 4 of the 11 links are showing 404 error codes, which… doesn’t look great. Maybe fix those up, and then either remove / rework the sections they were supporting, or else find some stable sources to reference. After that, resubmit, and all else being ok, it should be good to go.

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.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdum4242, I have further refined (fixed the 404 errors and added more text and integrated/wikilinked with the existing articles for the enhanced context), please review and approve. Thanks. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

INS Aravali, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdum4242, thanks you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LuniZunie 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.

– LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 23:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sutyarashi, you left this message with no reference which edit of mine you reverted. Please explain and why? I left you my good faith explanation. I left you list of questions on your talk page about your lack of accountability and misuse of tags on my page? 220.255.242.109 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had reverted your edits because they were a large scale attempt of POV pushing and misrepresentation of facts and irrelevant linking, along with a plethora of other problems. Most of your edits were linking irrelevant pages in the “See also” section. In most cases you did not even bother to hide your agenda, e.g Provincial discrimination and Punjabi-Sunni Supremacism in Pakistan, Kidnap and forced religious conversion of Non-Muslim girls to Islam in Pakistan, Sunni Punjabistan supremacis | Ethnic cleansing of Hazaras (1888-93) | Persecution of Turi Pashtun Shias in Kyber Pakhtunwa, Conflict with jihadists and neighboring tribes and so on. These are blatant examples of POV pushing here. When I get time I will go through your other edits as well and if your disruption does not stop will report your case at ANI. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sutyarashi,

1. Explain for each article what exactly you had issue with instead of throwing the blanket rulebook with “POV pushing”.

2. Demonstrate collaborative editing, which means retain all other edits while highlighting contentious edits on article talkpage and alert me about each. If you disagree with something, then it can not be the coat-tail to hang all mass reverts by you to push your POV in stalking way.

3. Refrain from blanket stalking too, else I will also take you to ANI and India Project and have you comprehensively reviewed all your edits and reverts same way as your stalking. It works both ways. You gained access to some tools, you have to abide by rules, not misuse tools to push your POV or conduct stalking.

4. I noticed you reverted (NOT archived as an honest editor must do) my comment from your talkpage, which creates doubt that you wish to evade scrutiny of your self-admitted staking and claims of further stalking. Refrain from reverting from yur talkpage tuntill issue is settled. I will continue discussion on your page and I still seek answer on your talkpage about the questions I had earlier left on your talkpage, reply there an alert me here instead of threatening me ongoing stalking here.

220.255.242.109 (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has got enough time to check your edit history individually to see where you have been POV pushing and I would love seeing you reporting your case to ANI. Go ahead. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panipat–Dabwali Expressway, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ScrabbleTiles (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]