User talk:Abhinav/Archive 3

That was a little mean
I was just trying to tell the world Paul Guezelkuecuek was a teen werwolf like wow no need m8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanteenwerwolf (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no misinforming/unsourced/non-notable articles up here m8. Abhinav (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Steal Like An Artist
Hello! Your submission of Steal Like An Artist at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Animalparty. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Hirnaxi Karelia filmography, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Medpsych Health Services tag
Hi Abhinav

You tagged the Medpsych page for deletion. It is not a promotion. Medpsych is a business and the effort is to create a page similar to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheppard_Pratt_at_Ellicott_City

Please remove the tag and let me know if you have any additional questions?

regards,

Mandeep

May 2014
Your recent editing history at Paleolithic Continuity Theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''I should have given this to you yesterday. I want you to be aware of this now as it is of course relevant to any editing you do, and you could have been blocked yesterday. Note that no one has an entitlement to 3RR and that there is now a discussion on the talk page.'' Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I should've asked for page protection. Some guy was repeatedly removing substantial content from that article. Actually, I was the third person involved in this. The revert was done once by CBNG and twice by WadeSimMaster. I was going to stop at the third time, but eventually reverted for fourth time, forgetting the count. Thanks a ton for letting me know, instead of blocking me right away. Even though it was not *entirely* my fault, but I agree with you, I had better ways to correct this. Thanks again. Abhinav (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your gracious response. You will see that there's been a discussion about this and most of the material in fact has been removed for what I think are good reasons. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Signature
Hi, I see you recently changed your signature to include an image. Unfortunately, as per WP:SIGIMAGE images within signatures is against policy and should be removed. Thanks for editing! tutterMouse (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Aww man!...It looked so nice. But okay, I'll remove it. Sorry for that violation.Abhinav [[Image:Abstractchakra01.jpeg]] {Oh Yes Abhi} 13:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)(One last time)
 * Came here to ask exactly the same thing. Tito ☸ Dutta 14:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Yes I've removed it since. Abhinav —Ŧ—� 16:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Abhinav, I am sorry, but at this time, I cannot grant your request for rollback at this time. While you do have significant reversions, as you have not been using Twinkle, I cannot discern whether you can adequately determine whether edits were made in good faith or bad faith, which is a pivotal component to reverting vandalism. As such, my request to you is that you use Twinkle for say 50 reversions, making sure that you warn editors who make edits that need to be reverted, and using the "good faith" and "vandalism" features of Twinkle. Once you have done that, you may ping me personally to re-review your contributions, and at that time, grant you rollback. Thank you.  Go  Phightins  !  01:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * - Oh, tough luck. Well, I'd love to use Twinkle in a comprehensive manner. But there's one thing that's been bugging me since the beginning. How do some users tend to operate Twinkle so incredibly well? I mean, reverting edits, especially latest ones, with Twinkle takes a lot of time. Even in RTRC, which operates live, much of the stuff I pursue to correct gets already done by someone else within seconds.
 * Take for example, User:Moony22, who requested rollback prior to me and was granted the right despite of having just 400 edits (I'm not complaining). But his contributions were almost entirely filled with Twinkle reverts and that too for the most latest cases of vandalism. He's not the only one I've seen to be using Twinkle so flawlessly, but I fail to follow the way these users reach out and revert the edits with Twinkle in mere minutes. I don't think I would ever be able to do that. :( Abhinav —Ŧ—� 09:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * -[Update] I went over to IRC and the guys over there told me to use 'Vada' by User:A930913. The tool seemed quite nice and I have since tried 1 legitimate edit with it. However, the reverts will state (Vada) in summary instead of Twinkle (TW). Is that acceptable? Abhinav —Ŧ—� 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So really, there is no rule on what you need to use, however in order to grant you rollback, I need to see evidence that you can distinguish good faith edits from vandalism. Perhaps you could do that by manually adding an edit summary (e.g., "GF" for good faith, or "V" for vandalism) or by warning/leaving friendly messages to users whom you revert, or some other way. Whatever works for you, but that's what I need to see.  Go  Phightins  !  11:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for Edit War
For article:British Asian As I'm expecting an admin to show up and warn me any time now, I didn't intend it. Plus User:KuKluxKhan was vandalising. Please have second thoughts prior to consider blocking. My sincere apologies. Abhinav —Ŧ—� 20:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion declined
The articles you have selected for speedy deletion has been removed because soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects are excluded from WP:CSD. ASCII-002 I Notify Online  05:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Live it China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)