User talk:Pictowrit

Duplicate image
I've answered your question on the help desk. - Mgm|(talk) 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Urban Registry for deletion
I've added the "prod" template to the article Urban Registry, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Urban Registry. If you remove the dated prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Raja Nawathe


A tag has been placed on Raja Nawathe 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 your 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the page be "userfied" or emailed to you. FrigidNinja (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Raja Nawathe
Hello, Pictowrit. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Raja Nawathe, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Raja Nawathe to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, GAtechnical (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shamim Ahmed Khan


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Shamim Ahmed Khan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that your 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. red dog six (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm Geniac. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Shankar Jaikishan, but you didn't provide a reliable source. If you'd like to include a citation, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Wisdom Tree (November 23)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Cerebellum (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pictowrit! Thank you for your note at my talk page, and for your extensive revisions on the article - I admire your persistence. Unfortunately, I still see two obstacles to the article's acceptance into the encyclopedia: 1) it violates wikipedia's guidelines on writing about fiction. The plot synopsis is the longest part of the article, and there is no information on critical opinion on the film or its impact on the real-world.  I recommend cutting down the plot summary to one paragraph, and removing the character descriptions or cutting them down to one sentence.  2)  It lacks reliable, independent sources - see the golden rule. The sources provided are unreliable (IMDB), and a couple of them are associated with the film so not independent. You need to provide some reviews or articles about the film to show that it meets wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. Let me know if you have any other questions! --Cerebellum (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, good job with those recent edits! I wish I had noticed before that the film was unreleased. That is going to be a big roadblock. You can read our guidelines on future films, but the main point is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." It's very hard to find enough sources to show that unreleased films are notable, so usually we wait until release. Again, I'm sorry I didn't read carefully to see that before. I feel like I gave you a false impression of how easy it would be to get the article accepted. Unless you can find sources discussion the film's production, you're going to have to wait until it is released and has some reviews. The good news is, the draft you've written can be kept for at least six more months, so you have plenty of time to work on the article some more after the film is released. Hope that helps. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Cerebellum (talk) Hi Cerebellum, Thank you for your words of appreciation for my efforts and edits. But yes, I'm somewhat disappointed that it's not enough to merit the go ahead from Wikipedia reviewers. Now here's the fact of the matter - while the film has not yet seen its theatrical release, it has been screened already at two events in the US. (a) At Emory University (Atlanta) last February, and (b) in San Jose at SAND conference, an event with international participation. This is a clear indication that the film production is definitely complete. Not only that, in two weeks they will hold their premiere in San Francisco. I just took a look at the independent ticketing company's website and searched for the event. http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/513361 It seems the film is now sold out. Would that information not suffice to allow for the article to be published? As for the notability of the film's production, you're quite right, I have no reference source as yet on that, except the primary source i.e. the film's official website. (I will search the web for that with a fine-tooth comb) :) I do have a question - if somebody else initiates an article independently on this same film would that be permitted per Wikipedia guidelines, while my article on the subject is under review or pending? Naturally, it would be the exact same subject with the story, key characters, crew and main info box being the same. I'm simply curious, and deliberating on whether to pursue my efforts, edits at this stage, and be patient so as to eventually see the article published. :) Please could you let me know. Thanks again :) for YOUR patience. Pictowrit (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)pictowrit
 * Unfortunately, no, those screenings don't justify publication just yet, unless the film was reviewed based on those screenings. It's probably best just to wait for now.  Someone else could initiate an article on this film while yours is pending, but then you would be able to edit the new article and add in any information from your draft not included in the new article.  Hope that makes sense!  --Cerebellum (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cerebellum (talk) Thanks for your message. Sorry, I did not get around to responding sooner. Well, while I hear you, I now have several references that I strongly feel should justify my re-submission. Perhaps you will see merit in this. I did not quite understand the rationale for someone else being able to initiate the same subject. Well, the film is already sold out for the premiere from what I read on an independent site. References are also made to the film in the media. A Hollywood film would appear in mainstream media. This is an indie. It is highly notable in that they're ready for release with minimal press support, is what I feel strongly about and hence my efforts! Hope you see what I'm getting at. Thanks. :) Pictowrit (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)pictowrit
 * Actually yes, those sources you've added do show notability. Great job finding those!  I'll take a closer look later today and hopefully get the article accepted by the end of the day.  --Cerebellum (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

--Cerebellum (talk), Hello. :) Thanks so much for showing me a hint of green, and also for your speed of response. Awaiting to hear from you again. Many thanks.:) Pictowrit (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)pictowrit
 * All right, the article has been created - you can find it at The Wisdom Tree. You'll note I made a few changes, let me know if you have any questions.  Just so you know for next time, the sources that convinced me were this and this, great job finding those!  --Cerebellum (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

--Cerebellum (talk), Hello, and hello again! :) :) Thanks a huge bunch for the article approval and help with the creation. As well for your efforts and encouraging words all through these past several days since I first initiated this article. In terms of 'convincing sources', I see what you mean. I'm a tad surprised that the "People" magazine reference did not cut it. After the film premiere next Saturday, I'm inclined to believe it should garner adequate mainline media coverage (will keep a watch). Indeed, thank you so very much for your time. :) I may revert to you for questions or some help later. For now, I'm beaming. Have a great evening. ;) Pictowrit (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)pictowrit

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Wisdom Tree (November 24)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! TKK public (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Wisdom Tree (November 25)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! TKK public (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC The Wisdom Tree was accepted
 The Wisdom Tree, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Cerebellum (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Possibly unfree File:The ancient university of Nalanda in Bihar, India, November 1996.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The ancient university of Nalanda in Bihar, India, November 1996.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

==== Hi ShakespeareFan00 (talk), thanks for writing. This is to confirm that the pix File:The ancient university of Nalanda in Bihar, India, November 1996.jpg is indeed my own. I have uploaded it on flickr (chitralekhan) a while back. Chitralekhan is my user name on Flickr, and I own the pix from a visit there in 1996. It is indeed okay to use the file here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Pictowrit (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC) pictowrit
 * Please change the licence on Flickr to a creative commons licence allowing commercial use with modifications. This is the most Wikipedia-compatible licence and will allow it to be added to Commons. Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list