User talk:Cjhareen

Nomination of United Vishwa Gayathri Universal Organization (UVGUO) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United Vishwa Gayathri Universal Organization (UVGUO) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/United Vishwa Gayathri Universal Organization (UVGUO) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of United Vishwa Gayathri Universal Organization (UVGUO)


A tag has been placed on United Vishwa Gayathri Universal Organization (UVGUO), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SwisterTwister  talk  20:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice
Thanks for contributing and visiting! However, the article you wrote reads too much like an advertisement and would need reliable third-party sources to be considered notable. "Aims and Objectives" are never acceptable and, although the article lists their poems, there isn't much information to indicate the organization's significance. To learn how to cite references, visit Referencing for beginners. If you need any help, feel free to contact me at my talk page. I also suggest visiting your welcome links above. SwisterTwister  talk  20:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Madupu satyanarayana vishwabrahma


A tag has been placed on Madupu satyanarayana vishwabrahma requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Need for reliable sources
Hello, I'm Buddhipriya. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Shiva, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Hello, I'm Torreslfchero. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Ramana Reddy, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Madhavapeddi Satyam. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Vangara Venkata Subbaiah, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently posting inappropriate links, despite warnings. All of your recent editing has consisted of posting links to one web site, which you have done dozens of times, in a way that looks like promotion of that website. It is also noticeable that some of your earlier contributions were deleted as being promotional. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)