User talk:Kapil.xerox

Thank you
I appreciate the Barnstar! Hoping to improve the article even further. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha
I just blocked Swamiblue, but you cannot revert again. If you do, I will be compelled to block you for violating WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Bbb23, thanks for letting me know that I cannot revert. But, I was under the impression that reverting edits made by banned users, or sockpuppets of banned or blocked users does not count under the rule (from my reading of WP:NOT3RR). While we are at it, I would like to gain more clarity about this. Doesn't User:Swamiblue and User_talk:69.172.85.34 fall under the category of banned users? User_talk:69.172.85.34 made disruptive edits after User:Swamiblue's edits, who was also blocked a second time by an Admin. Both users exhibit regular disruption to articles and have/are serving regular blocks. Can they be counted as banned/blocked users? On the side note, if you look at my edit history whenever I reverted, I left a clear edit summary along with a link to the talk page discussion where I have explained why the edit should be removed due to clear violation of Wikipedia policies. As evidenced, the current version has now been restored to my neutral version. I would appreciate if you can clarify this. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time I was referring to Swamiblue, but putting that aside, neither the IP nor Swamiblue is banned. Nor is either a confirmed puppet of a banned or blocked user. The IP was blocked for disruptive editing, and, as you know, I blocked Swamiblue for edit warring. If you believe you can revert a user just because they are currently blocked, that's not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop from editing articles where there is a Conflict Of Interest
Hello, Kapil.xerox. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Swamiblue (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for reverting at Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha after warnings. 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 the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ford Fulkerson method


A tag has been placed on Ford Fulkerson method requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Akshardham (Delhi), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanskriti. 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) 09:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

How can we work together to resolve our dispute?
Hello Kapil.Xerox,

I received all the messages that you are not happy with my work and words. I want to work with you to resolve the content disputes and I ultimately want to move away from editing these topics. What things to you want me to change about my editing habits so that there is a constructive environment here on Wikipedia. I feel it would be same to tell you some things too but I will let you go first. This is separate to your other proposal that you posted. Let me know.

Swamiblue (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dropbox Carousel


The article Dropbox Carousel has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Nominating for PROD due to the fact that this is a product that does not make a reasonable claim of significance. It would be eligible for A7, but products are not included in this list.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Naveen Jain
Thanks for the help on the article. I reverted a small portion of it. The source is from 2008. I'm not aware of any similar prominent complaints, nor are any sourced, so I assume the change was a mistake. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Ronz for the correction! Yes! That was a mistake. I think now I see why I changed to currently - my poor eyes picked the "Access Date" instead of the actual date the article was printed. By the way that whole article is poorly written. Needs more working. Appreciate! Kapil.xerox (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, and the help! --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Talk:Pramukh Swami Maharaj. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr.  K.  06:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

APRIL 2016 Please stop from editing articles where there is a Conflict Of Interest
Hello, Kapil.xerox. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Swamiblue (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Swamiblue (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

April 10th 2016
Your recent editing history at shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.

Please knock it off. Your tedious removal of Pramukh Swami's sexual abuse allegations discussion on the talk pages is a blatant conflict of interest based on your persistent editing history of this topic. According to the wikipedia policy, you will be banned. There has nothing been included in the article and the talk page has cited sources stating the allegations of a notable person. Swamiblue (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Proposed deletion of Lauren Wasser


The article Lauren Wasser has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:ONEEVENT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Lauren Wasser for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lauren Wasser 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/Lauren Wasser 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 notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhagatji Maharaj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahuva. 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) 09:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Category: Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism
I've re-opened the discussion regarding the category name change for the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism category, as a previous participant, could you please weigh in? Apollo1203 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BAPS Aksharderi Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:BAPS Aksharderi Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)