User talk:Gardenkur

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: They should not be given alerts for those areas.

/sandbox

List of all Categories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents/Categories

List of Articles without Category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Categories/uncategorized

About this edit: Thanks! Also, in Wikipedia's jargon, we call those "links" rather than "citations". Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how is your editing experience so far.LoveAll (talk). 10:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	This is a message of appreciation. LoveAll (talk). 11:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You r doing fine. LoveAll (talk). 10:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
616		Samkhya (talk)	Add sources
4,026		Quran (talk)	Add sources
39		Jain meditation (talk)	Add sources
109		Abenaki mythology (talk)	Add sources
27		Yoga (Hindu astrology) (talk)	Add sources
1,594		Asceticism (talk)	Add sources
317		Religions by country (talk)	Cleanup
144		Women and religion (talk)	Cleanup
118		Brainwave entrainment (talk)	Cleanup
264		Religious symbol (talk)	Expand
24		Religion and health (talk)	Expand
136		Neo-Vedanta (talk)	Expand
290		British Israelism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,183		The Satanic Temple (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,352		Religion in India (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
821		State religion (talk)	Merge
1,160		Adenoviridae (talk)	Merge
65		Sentientism (talk)	Merge
178		Christianity and other religions (talk)	Wikify
252		Islam and other religions (talk)	Wikify
55		Guided meditation (talk)	Wikify
3		Anat Sultan-Dadon (talk)	Orphan
3		Andrews Matriculation School (talk)	Orphan
2		Annabella Mary Geddes (talk)	Orphan
31		Ute mythology (talk)	Stub
31		Seneca mythology (talk)	Stub
22		Purépecha religion (talk)	Stub
28		Tsimshian mythology (talk)	Stub
25		Nuu-chah-nulth mythology (talk)	Stub
23		Positive deconstruction (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia on its 20th birthday, quite a thing.

On sources, we generally don't rely on other encyclopedia-like websites (tertiary sources) which offer general definitions: those may be better than nothing, but really we like to use reliable secondary sources which are specialised to the kind of knowledge in a particular article: in a yoga article, that means yoga research or independent yoga websites.

I saw that you added sources to the lead (top) section in articles; this is usually not necessary, as long as the article's body (the main text) is properly cited, i.e. the lead is allowed to rely on the body's citations.

One small thing: if you want to reuse a citation, you don't have to define it all over again with identical copies. All you need to do is to name it the first time, and reuse the name part, like this:

<ref name="AYLI 3.1">As You Like It, Act 3, Scene 1</ref> ......... text.<ref name="AYLI 3.1"/>

Note that the reused named ref has to end with a / just before the final angle bracket.

Note by the way that the final "." goes just before the ref!

What a lot of things to remember all at once. Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChiswickChap,

Thanks a lot for your information and guidance and as iam new user it will help me in my editing in future.

Gardenkur (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! However, that means choosing the best sources. Those will be textbooks and academic journal articles. Popular news items, blog, and commercial websites are very unlikely to be suitable for anything technical such as science or yoga, and are forbidden on some areas, such as medicine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Asana, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Hi, I've given you a friendly explanation with suggestions and you've totally ignored it! Not good enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please stop adding citations to 'Medical News Today'? It looks quite ropey, I very much doubt that it's an RS. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether you might have fun with Wikipedia:Citation Hunt. You just click the blue button and it will show you a paragraph that another editor has requested a citation for. You can search for your favorite topics if you want. This is a purely optional suggestion, of course, but maybe you'd enjoy it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Presently I am working on article Draft:Irrational beliefs. Coincidentally article on same topic @ https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Irrational_beliefs contains a good write up,That content is okay to use under under CC-BY-SA without copyright issues, but content there does not have any references or citations. So please see if you can help me out in citations for the same content i.e. following paragraphs. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "...Irrational beliefs are attitudes, beliefs values etc that a person strongly holds despite objective evidence, generally available and understood, to the contrary.

• Such beliefs can be maintained by intrapersonal cognitive structures, sometimes based on particular uncommon occurences. For example having been involved in a car accident I develop and maintain a belief that automobile travel is catastophically dangerous. We could develop a notional sliding scale of irrationality from beliefs that are only slight exagerations of what might be considered a 'normal reaction' to such events to extensive delusions which seem completely irrational. Cognitive dissonance theory and psychodynamic theory have been partly developed to explain how such beliefs are maintained.

• They can also be partly shaped by external social pressures. Studies of conformity have indicated how people will report irrational beliefs under the influence of group dynamics and peer pressure, while studies of cults show just how far these effects can go. ..."^[1]

• @Justlettersandnumbers: Since you were on this talk page can you please take my above request to help and guidance. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bookku, I'm afraid that's not a topic I have much interest in, and even less expertise. You could perhaps start with texts such as this, this or this. Sorry not to be able to be of more help, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still you could help me in hinting couple of refs, thanks for the same, it is very nice of you. Bookku (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Adding references to Wikipedia is a valuable and thoroughly worthwhile endeavour, thank you! However, it's only worth doing if (a) the reference is actually needed and (b) it is a solid reliable source. One possible way of finding where citations are lacking is to look at Category:Articles with unsourced statements or any one of its subcategories. The sources you cite should be only those with a solid reputation for reliability – academic papers, books published by well-known publishers, major national newspapers, the websites of major institutions and the like. With only a few exceptions, stuff you find on the internet is unlikely to be reliable by our standards. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to the article Lithuania. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. It looks like you have been issued many warnings regarding the additions of unreliable sources so I advise you to stop. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: Greetings! I see that you like citing sources. Please though, make sure you read WP:CN and WP:VERIFY, because a massive amount of the ones you cite are unreliable and sometimes also not secondary. Cooperating and listening to advice is important in an encyclopedia as some people have been indefinitely blocked for refusing to cooperate, which I do not want to happen to you; I see that you haven't really responded to queries and comments about you citing sources. I fear that I might have to revert most of them in articles that are either BLP or medical. Again, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and make sure you pay attention to your talk page. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Borderless World Foundation, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2021 (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 Curbon7 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chennai Interventional Pulmonology and Critical Care Associates and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chennai Interventional Pulmonology and Critical Care Associates, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Curbon7 (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gardenkur! Having an article 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! Curbon7 (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2021 (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 Dan arndt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:

Non-notable public servant

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gardenkur/sandbox/Sanjay Bhatia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Gardenkur/sandbox/Sanjay Bhatia, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 reason left by Hatchens was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Hatchens (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Sanjay Bhatia (administrator), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hatchens (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

I'd be willing to restore the draft if you show that you understand why it is considered promotional and describe what you will do to improve it. The way you wrote it, it just sounds like a CV - the kind of thing the subject himself would have written if he was applying for a job. Any article that mentions the subject's "x years of experience" immediately sounds promotional. Also, I must ask whether you have any connection with the subject outside Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your message. You say that you understand that the article is deleted but you don't know why you can't find it. I'm asking you to show that you understand the above advice before I restore it. If you don't see what is promotional about the wording, we're not likely to make progress. Deb (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your message just talks about adding further detail, but this will be no use if you don't understand how to make it non-promotional. Have you completed the NPOV tutorial? Deb (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend the quiz. Deb (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which you did a lot of work on, has been moved to draft space as it is highly promotional in its present form and notability has not been established. If you would like to work on it to bring it up to standard, you have the opportunity. Deb (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that there are two reasons: one is that it's highly promotional and the other is that notability has not been established. So you need to look around for better independent references.

Let's look at the wording. Some of it was referenced to an article in www.millenniumpost.in, written by a politician with a vested interest in appearing to support charities.

"...after being moved by the destruction caused by fire to makeshift homes and ragged shelters". This is not encyclopedic language. It would have been quite enough to say "after a fire destroyed the makeshift homes"

"Amod K Kanth, a highly decorated former Director General of Police(DGP)..." The fact that he is "highly decorated" is completely irrelevant and serves only to attempt to make him sound more important.

"he visited the site of the fire as part of his duty he was deeply touched by the images of destitute and orphaned children". It would have been quite enough to say "while on duty he saw the site of the fire and was concerned for the welfare of the children".

"...this prompted the birth of Prayas in a one-room setup in Jahangirpuri with the help of some selfless friends" This doesn't explain how Prayas got started. You could have said "Prayas was founded in one room in Jahangirpuri by a group of friends."

Can you see how all this additional flowery prose that you've introduced into the article seems to be designed to put a gloss on the facts? Deb (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be doing the same things here that you have been warned about previously - writing in promotional language and using primary sources instead of looking for independent ones. I'm sorry if you don't understand the issues, but I must tell you that, if you carry on doing these things, you will probably end up being blocked from editing altogether. Deb (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a great deal of over-detailed information about the exact details of contracts and the like from the article--it makes the article appear promotional. I expect to remove some additional duplication . The basic characteristics of promotionalism is that it provides the readers with what the organization would like to tell them, and is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. A useful rule of thumb is if it reads like an organization's web site, it isn't suitable for an encyclopedia .

As the previous administrator just said, if you continue in this manner you are likely to be blocked. For the record,a formal notice follows.

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thank you for putting my name in a Wikipedia article!!! I wrote a Medium piece about religion last year, which you referenced in the Wikipedia article Religion and health, along with my name. That's an old dream of mine, having my name appear somewhere on Wikipedia. Thank you! Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals, I'm sorry for the disappointment, but I just noticed this message and had to remove the citation, as it is self-published on a known platform for self-publishing (cf. WP:MEDIUM at the list of perennial sources for Wikipedia articles). I'm primarily writing this to notify Gardenkur about the situation, but I'm notifying you too because you may else later wonder why it's gone, or may be encouraged to do the same in other articles. Sorry ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2021 (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 Nomadicghumakkad was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chennai Interventional Pulmonology and Critical Care Associates and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chennai Interventional Pulmonology and Critical Care Associates, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gardenkur! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• 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 cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help: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. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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. — Diannaa (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Assam Lokayukta may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nightenbelle (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta, 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Iamfarzan (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Lokayukta, 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nightenbelle (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Bhatia (administrator), 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by writing in a promotional and non-encyclopedic manner into articles, you may be blocked from editing. addition of unsourced overdetailed promotional content to multiple articles DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 31 August 2021 (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 Tom (LT) were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chennai Interventional Pulmonology and Critical Care Associates and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chennai Interventional Pulmonology and Critical Care Associates, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Tom (LT) (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have been cleaning up after you, so please remove the hidden userspacedraft templates at the top before mainspacing, and be aware of sentence case and 'See also' (the mainspace word for 'Related articles'). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this edit for example. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gardenkur. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd, 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 or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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) 07:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that my IP address had been blocked for reasons not known to me. Could someone help me unblocking it to continue my edit efforts.Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

My IP address had been blocked and Iam unable to edit. Can someone help unblocking it.

Decline reason:

If "all is well", you shouldn't need to be unblocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2021 (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.

To help you, you will need to tell us the IP address involved. If you don't wish to post it publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to make a private unblock request(please indicate if you will do that). 331dot (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address is 2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. Really appreciate your quick response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardenkur (talk • contribs)

What page are you trying to edit, that you cannot edit? There is no reason to open a new unblock request when replying. SQL^{Query Me!} 11:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SQL. Sorry in confusion opened new request. All is well. Gardenkur (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good to see you adding infobox for the articles without one. Please add the year of completion of the temple (wherever that info is available) in the infobox, since it is one of the most important information on any built structure. I've added that in some of the articles. Thanks again for all your contributions. Cheers. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gardenkur - I have reverted a few of your edits, such as Mantralayam and Kotappakonda, for overlinking - so I have come to explain the reason.
As explained at ‎ WP:OVERLINKING we only link the first use of a term in an article, and we do not normally link:-

• Everyday words understood by most readers.
• Names familiar to most readers, including;- major countries, major cities, major languages, major nationalities/ethnicities and major religions
• Common units of measurement and dates

There are many articles where these are already, incorrectly, linked; however, India is clearly a major country, so should not be linked - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenkur; despite your comment on my talk page, you are still overlinking - eg at New Delhi Kali Bari where you linked India, and linked Delhi three times. India is a major country, and IMHO Delhi is a major city, but even if you think Delhi isn't a major city, and needs linking, please only link the first use. - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenkur - you are working very hard on creating infoboxes, but you are still overlinking, and are not putting the pre-existing image (if there is one) inside the infobox, making work for others.
As an example in this edit at Panchalingeswar Temple you linked India, (which is a major country so we do not link it), linked Balasore twice (whereas we only link the first use), and put the infobox above the image (rather than incorporating the image into the box).
To tidy this up I made this edit removing the overlinking and moving the image.
Please note that images inside infoboxes have a different format - No "File" or "Image" at the front and no "thumb" parameter, whilst the caption is on a different line.
Finally, please avoid using a redirect and a pipe to the correct article, as you did at Mausimaa Temple where you added [[Odisha, India|Odisha]], giving a green (redirect) link, whereas it should simply be [[Odisha]] giving a blue (direct) link.
So, thanks for your work, but please don't leave so much tidying up to be done - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Assam Lokayukta, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barchalla (Vidhan Sabha constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AGP. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’m a new page reviewer and I’m looking at the series of articles you created on state bar councils. I’m afraid the way you have sourced them isn’t acceptable. Basically you have a single cookie-cutter article to which you’ve minor details about each state council. The result for each state is an article that makes claims for that state based on sources talking about entirely different states. If there is genuinely so little to say about each state council, there should not be sewerage articles for each. I’m assuming it is possible to write articles properly referenced to sources talking about each state bar council, so I’m sending them all to draft for you to tidy up. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of West Bengal, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Rajasthan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Delhi, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Bihar, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Kerala, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bar Council of Jharkhand, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Council of Jharkhand, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Akevsharma (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]