User talk:Mrwikidor

March 2013
Hi Mrwikidor. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for 2013 Canning riots, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. ''Specifically, the article at least appears to be well-referenced. I checked one or two of those references and they appear to support the article's claims. Therefore, even if you are correct this is not a simple case of a hoax that is so obvious it could be considered vandalism and so it is not a suitable candidate for speedy deletion. If you are certain it is a hoax I would suggest nominating it at WP:AFD. '' Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing
Please stop your Canvassing.--  K a t h o v o  talk 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't canvassed rather i contacted other editors for their help.  Mrwikidor  ←track  17:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, what you are doing is a blatant violation of the canvassing policy. You are not just asking for help, you are asking for support for your position, as anyone can see from your recent edits. Please read and understand WP:CANVAS and cease these activities.A more appropriate way to ask for help in such situations is to post a neutrally worded message at WP:NPOVN asking that the neutrality of the article be examined or to open a request at the dipute resolution noticeboard or maybe at least try a discussion on the article's talk page, which I note you have yet to use at all. In other words, instead of trying to recruit an army to oppose other users, try to find a consensus and avoid the battlefield mentality that seems evident in those messages. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, i've just messaged you about that and i'll try to cease these things in future. Thank you once again for the advise.  Mrwikidor  ←track  17:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mrwikidor for the message. But in the future, please try to post more neutral messages as pointed out above.Bless sins (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Disruptive editing
'Namaste'', Mrwikidor. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!''' Message added by Tito Dutta (contact) 17:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC). You can [ remove this notice] at any time. One more reply at my talk page! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Further Disruptive Editing
Hi. Your most recent edits to multiple articles raise several questions concerning your level of knowledge of and/or adherence to conventional wikipedia rules and policies concerning neutral editing. Some of them are listed below I understand that you object to the wording of some of these article as they seem non-neutral to you. Having such concerns is perfectly acceptable, and resolving them in the proper way is laudatory. However, I strongly encourage you to do so by raising the issues in the talk page, as well as using means like Requests for comment to get attention from a broader audience. I strongly recommend the latter as it has helped me fix many hitherto biased articles on wikipedia. Your edit patterns, as they currently stand, are highly disruptive and, if unchecked, may require administrator intervention.Handyunits (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, you have tagged an article with a factual accuracy dispute, yet you haven't actually raised a dispute in the talk page. If you tag a 'factual accuracy dispute', there has to be a dispute raised.
 * The same pattern is repeated here, where you have tagged an article with a claim of original research. Yet, you have not raised any issues in the talk page about which of the content constitutes WP:NOR.
 * Your edit here is, I'm afraid, entirely unacceptable. The edit summary violates WP:NPOV and makes an extremely offensive and racist personal attack upon established editors. You should apologize to the editors you have attacked and refrain from making such comments. Your edits removed a large chunk of material without discussing it in the article talk page, or filing an RfC. Henceforth, please comment on content, not on contributor.

Re:Your Kind Response Needed
I went over the article and I cannot comment on its credibility. In past, I usually avoid such articles where people may have drastically different beliefs because these articles can be spun into a very biased manner while following the wiki guidelines in letter, but not in spirit. So stupid and pointless edit wars ensue which will waste your efforts to keep the article neutral. Anyway, I will try to find time for if i can to make any contribs. —  Hamza  [ talk ]  12:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dainik Jugasankha
Mrwikidor, Would you take a look at your nomination of Dainik Jugasankha for deletion. I found that you caught an important error that is subtle! The transliteration that you nominated was not the best and the new transliteration used here does bring up better search results. See if you agree! Thanks for bringing this to everybody's attention because it probably wouldn't have been caught soon. Best, Crtew (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bagber massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali (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) 21:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Signature
I've just noticed you don't have a link to your talk page in your sig: could you please fix this? Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 08:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of tawkon.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Logo of tawkon.jpg. 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) 17:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)