User talk:Suresh 5

Stress (mechanics)
Hi, Suri 100. Welcome to Wikipedia. You've been adding material on virial stress to Stress (mechanics). I have two tips/requests. First, your contributions would be more valuable if they included citations of published works. Second, you seem to have stopped your editing in the middle of a sentence. If you would like to work through drafts of new material, without the obligation of finishing the material right away, there are two common methods. You can draft the material on the article's talk page; then other editors can comment on it before it is incorporated into the article. Or you can draft the material on your own user page or subpage, if you prefer to control it more tightly. Well, I hope you enjoy participating here. Mgnbar (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bhopal disaster
Please do not delete large tracts of text without giving an adequate reason. Here is some information you might find helpful;

Welcome...

Hello, Suri 100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Sp in ni ng  Spark  07:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with your signature is that it does not include a link to your user page or talk page (the standard signature has links to both). At least one link is a Wikipedia requirement - see WP:SIGLINK - and if you don't have a link bots like SineBot will fail to recognise it as a signature.  You have probably caused this problem inadvertently by checking the "Treat the above as wiki markup" in your preferences.  If you check this box you need to insert the links in your signature manually as the signature will now be treated literally by the software.  However, if you just want your signature to be your username (as it currently is) you don't really need to be making a custom signature.  You can just leave the signature box blank, uncheck the box, and the software will automatically generate the standard signature.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Indian Army
I saw you were trying to request unprotection. I've fixed the request for you, and unprotected the article. Regards, Ged  UK  14:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

re Incremental service awards
Hi Suri 100. You deleted these, or at any rate blanked them by converting them to a redirect. I don't see this as a particularly good idea or especially friendly to the editor who went to the trouble of creating them. Also there is and was an open discussion at the WP:SERVICE with supporting merge templates. I'm sure you didn't see these or you wouldn't have done that, so just letting you know. I have userfied these for the time being. Herostratus (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My stand is simply that it's not your decision to make on your own, is all. There's an active discussion ongoing. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome template on ClueBot Commons talk page
Hello

Just to let you know that there was no need for a welcome template to be left on ClueBot NG's talk page. Firstly because ClueBot NG is a robot and therefore doesn't actually make any real edits to articles and secondly, even if ClueBot NG was a person it has been around for coming up for 4 years in one form or another, and templates like that should only go to people who either aren't experienced in editing or have only just joined. You can tell how long someone has been editing Wikipedia, how many edits they've made etc by making a slight change in your preferences. To do this, click on the 'my preferences' and then on the 'gadgets' section. Put a tick in the third box down for navigation popups, article previews etc and save your changes. The next time you hover over a link to ClueBot NG's page it will tell you how long that particular bot has been editing Wikipedia, what position it holds, how many edits it has made etc etc. Any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.I initially unknowingly put welcome template on that page,but afterwards, I reverted it. Suri 100 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Espionage
please restore the section 'The Law and Espionage'. it was well referenced, notable, and relevant. Decora (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * and yes i realize Gerstein doesnt use the word 'espionage act of 1917', but that is what 'disclosure of classified information' means. i dont think that is original research, and i could find other articles that use the word 'espionage' specifically, but Gerstein's is the best becasue he has brought all the cases together in one analysis. Decora (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the other part of that section linked directly to the court files of the accused (ames for example). Decora (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored most of the text that was there under section 'the law and espionage' to the 'Risks ' section.Suri 100 (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks. Decora (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher
I have reverted your edit of the infobox on Margaret Thatcher's article. I did this because the dates below the title clearly indicate she's no longer the Prime Minister, so having the word "Former" in the title is redundant. Furthermore, when a person is occupying the title in the present-sense, the word "incumbent" is automatically listed below. The fact this word did not appear further states to the reader that she is no longer the Prime Minister. In addition, there is no such title as "Former Prime Minister" within the British political system, and infobox title areas are reserved for concrete titles. Lastly, please look at every other political infobox, and you'll see that we never use the word "Former". I thought to make you aware of these reasons so as to avoid future problems. Thank you, and happy editing. Franklinville (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You are always welcome and and an happy editing to you too.I suggest that your user page be presentable as it is blank. Suri 100 (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice - I've always be meaning to get round to improving my page. Franklinville (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Rice and curry
OK, 10 days now. No sign of any discussion at all there  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Villages
I'm afraid you're quite mistaken on this edit. The context was clear, and the article absolutely qualifies to stay. - Philippe 08:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is very short and does not have importance.Please expand if you can.Please note that the article is of no importance and it is more like a dictionary.Thank you. Happy years of editing! Suri 100 (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if you take a look, you'll find that precedent is strongly on the side of inclusion of towns. They're typically well covered in secondary sources.  Rather than having it deleted, why not try to improve it?   Several administrators have declined that now.  - Philippe  08:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please slow down
Please, familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Your deletion-spree isn't accomplishing anything other than annoying people who have to clean up after you—"too short" and "not enough references" are grounds for improving articles, not deleting them. 212.74.97.205 (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.I shall follow your point seriously.I think what I did was wrong. Suri 100 (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I must agree with the IP concern above. I noticed your prod rationale at Vladimir Galkin: "The article is too short .The article lacks sufficient context." The context is quite clear, and the brevity of the article shouldn't be a reason for deletion. We call short articles "stubs" and they are perfectly valid, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion notice on that article.Sorry for discomfort. Suri 100 (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!
I am glad for meeting you.Suri 100 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!
Thanks.Suri 100 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Indian presidential election, 2012
Hello Suri 100. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Indian presidential election, 2012, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is too short and contains only one line.In fact ,it cant be called as an article if i am not mistaken.Suri 100 (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are very much mistaken. Though it is short, it has enough information to identify the subject of the article, and in addition has links demonstrating its notability. Given that the page is two years old and has been edited by several admins, the speedy nom is particularly ill-advised. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You are qualified
Hello, Suri 100. This is to notify you that you have been enrolled in the Counter Vandalism academy. If you have any questions, doubts, concerns, feel free to contact me, and I'm ready. I'd take a few tests to ensure that you're up to the mark or not. Thanks for your contributions, and great to have you! Dipankan ( Have a chat? ) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to complete the questions here. Thanks. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for enrolling me .I have answered your questions.I came to know about the academy from your user page.It is also great for me to have Indian Wikipedians like you.Suri 100 (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I reviewed your answers, and found it was correct. Congratulations, you've passed the test with a good grade. And answer to Q3. was great. Any doubt, just ping me, and I'll be ready. Thanks. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 06:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What is use of three revert rule (3RR)if the user is not engaging in edit-war?. Already the user will be blocked if he engages in edit war even if he does not violate the 3RR rule so what is the use of this rule?Suri 100 (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Not engaging in edit war"- means probably they are fighting vandalism, which is excluded from the 3RR. A edit war tends to be severe - many reverts in a day. To minimize that, 3RR had been set up, so once a user reverts more than 3 times in one day in a single page with this own thought, (much of arguing with other editors), admins block users, leaving a dirty note (Blocked messages) on the talk page. So this is the purpose of 3RR. Did you get it? Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 11:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I got it.ThanksSuri 100 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Coming back to visit. Any problem with vandalism or such? Ping me, alright? Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 15:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem as of now.Yes I would contact you if there is a problem.Suri 100 (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot NG
Hello! Can I ask, why you made this edit and turned the anti-vandal bot off?--5 albert square (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I did this purposefully in a bad intention of vandalism,in fact soon after that edit however I thought to revert my own edit but it was already reverted by other user.The previous edit by me in this bot page was also in that intention of vandalism which you misunderstood that I tried to put a welcome template on the talk page.

My nonconstructive edits on this page has caused a lot of inconvenience to you and other fellow wikipedians ,I am again seriously sorry for that.I shall not do that again failing which you are free to take any action against me including block or ban.Suri 100 (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are supposed to be helping to counter vandalism! Turning off Cluebot is about the least helpful thing you could possibly do. It must raise suspicions that you were planning some vandalism and hoped to prevent it being detected. As your edit was promptly reverted no harm has been done, but take this as an only warning: if you do anything like that again, you will get a long block. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why, I was off, but I'm really pissed off to see that you'd turned off the bot. Why? Please, no testing. It's a very serious matter. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 16:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I wont do like that ever again.Suri 100 (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!
Thanks Suri 100 (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556201458 your edit] to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556857751 your edit] to President of India may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Google Earth
I really want to thank you for your help there. I feel it may be too early to relist it as a GA nominee, but I'm not sure. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

See, any GA nomination can be re -listed if the reasons for rejecting the previous are fixed.Or, if there was a mistake from the reviewer. There is no time bar for re -listing ,so you can very well re-list it.Suri 100 (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll have to take a look at the page and the GA info pages. :) -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802
Hi Suri 100. Thanks so much for taking the time to look at the article, I really apprciate it. I believe you're quite new to reviewing good articles, have you looked at many other reviews? Generally they're a little bit more thorough in explaining what has been checked, as well as suggesting any improvements. It's fine if you couldn't find anything more, but it's always helpful to know what's been reviewed. If it helps, have a look at the last few GA reviews I've had. Talk:Richard_Rennison/GA1, Talk:North Pier, Blackpool/GA1, Talk:Pasty/GA1, Talk:Squab pie/GA1. Thanks again for reviewing - I hope you don't mind writing a bit more! Worm TT( talk ) 11:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is beautifully written (Manual of Style), but i suggest that lead section could still be expanded ("maligant fever" maybe). And also thanks for guiding me. Suri 100 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you considered filling in one of the GA templates? They will make your reviews look a lot more professional. Good article nominations/templates for a list. You could update Talk:Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802/GA1 with one... Worm TT( talk ) 11:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

✅ Suri 100 (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks :D Worm TT( talk ) 11:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

GAN of President of India
Hi, I have started the review of the article and comments are in talk:President of India/GA1. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied in the review page.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
You and your partner Mohammed CJ should really  really be appreciated for bringing that article to GA article. You and your partner were tirelessly working from its creation to present. I see that barnstars are not  enough to appreciate you and your partner. Suri 100 (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Tirunelveli
Hi, thanks a lot for taking up the review of Tirunelveli. The last time it was nominated, it failed because of copy-edit. It was done with the help of user:Miniapolis - I will share the credits with him.Ssriram mt (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Aston Martin DB9
Hello. While I greatly appreciate your review of Aston Martin DB9, I intend to bring the article to to FAC and am concerned that the article has more issues than your GA review revealed. I've requested a reassessment. Thanks. Superflat Monogram 19:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. All humans makes mistake:). But it would be better if I know the issues behind it so that i can help to correct it. Thanks.Suri 100 (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reviews
I just checked your last few reviews, and it doesn't look like you reviewed any of them at all. You just said they were good and moved on. If you found no issues on multiple consecutive reviews, that's generally a good indicator that you're reviewing improperly. I ask that you stop, at least for now, and read up on other reviews to see how it's done. In the meantime we'll go through the recent reviews and try to undo the damage. Wizardman 19:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, your reviews from May seem okay, it's just the ones from the past couple days. No idea why you stopped leaving comments... Wizardman  19:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I had thoroughly read the articles before passing the articles as GA, but i didnt add any comments in some of the articles as i felt there were no issues. If there are any issues, i would myself make the edits on the article if they are within my scope. Also, i didnt pass the articles University of British Columbia and Aston Martin DB9 in which the former is a article of high importance. Suri 100 (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I am new in reviewing this GA articles, but even then i am careful in passing the articles as GA. Also please dont use the term 'damages' in this context as I have not done these with bad intention. Suri 100 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am re-reviewing Aston Martin DB9 and I would not have awarded it GA-status in its current form. So far, it appears to be non-compliant with with WP:WIAGA clauses 1(b), (possibly) 2(b), and 3(a). It will keep the GA that you awarded for the duration of my review (Talk:Aston Martin DB9/GA2) and provided that the nominator fixes the problems within one week of the end of my review (I strongly believe that this will happen) it will remain a GA; otherwise it will be delisted. Note: above you seem to be saying that you did not pass Aston Martin DB9, but Talk:Aston Martin DB9/GA1 states that you did pass it. Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. But it seems you have stopped the review. Suresh 5 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I stopped, but that is not the same as putting it "On Hold" or delisting it. I last worked on the review on 12th July and that was mostly checking on "problems" that were raised early this month, some of which have been addressed but not all of them. The last comment in the review happens to be at the "Reception" section and was dated 7th July 2013. I've not reviewed that section yet, nor have I reviewed the Lead. I'll be working on it later today. Pyrotec (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you doing? Why are you moving archived RfAs all over the place? Pol430   talk to me  14:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pol430  talk to me  14:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not move any more pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am really sorry for the incident. I wasnt vandalizing the pages, as a rollbacker it is my job to prevent it!. I unknowingly moved the page. Again sorry for the mistake and thanks for notifying the prob. Suri 100 (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ged UK  12:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Prime Minister of India
I am adding some contents - but not sure what the reliable refs are. Just see that PMO website is publishing in the name of UPA as in here - - what a shame.Ssriram mt (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 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 Wikipedia&.
 * 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 live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SL93 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

See [] and [] ( It is a government web!) which are the two sources which are included in the article which are more than enough to prove the existance of the hihly important topic. There should be only a general review and inline citations would be given later. Suri 100 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Capital punishment
Hi there! In this diff, you asked why the Capital punishment GAN was failed. I assume that this means you did not see the review page, which gives more than enough justification for the fail. If you have any other questions, feel free to leave a note here or on my talk page. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I will do my best to improve the article.Suresh 5 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your laudable review of the article. But the prob is that I am inexp in handling ref and phrases you mentioned. However I have tried to re-organize your article. As the article is of high importance and a highly notable subject of debate, it would be helpful if you imp the article by fixing that. Also, further in-depth review would be highly welcomed relating to content of the article. Suresh 5 (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. With [ this recent set of edits], it looks like you have removed large portions of the Capital punishment article without any explanation.  Are you planning to rewrite this deleted material and/or restore it to a different place in the article?  If you object to this material and intended to remove it, you need to explain your reasoning (preferably on the article's talk page); otherwise, you may find others misinterpreting your mass deletions as vandalism and undoing your work.  I strongly recommend you say something relevant to this on the article's talk page ASAP, before making any further changes to the article.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I admit some images were inadvertently removed. You can very well restore it. Suresh 5 (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, a section "Ancient Tang China", was removed because it does not provide world wide view of the subject. I think my exp would solve the prob. I will add reason before further edits. Suresh 5 (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's getting late for me, and I need to wrap up for the night, so I really can't work on this right now. I've put a note on the article's talk page in hopes of getting input from some other people.  I'm not sure, BTW, that removing large sections of an article (over 8K bytes of text) because you feel the material could be written better is the best approach; unless the old text was horridly objectionable, it would probably be better to let it stay until you have something new to insert in its place.  Concerns involving WP:WORLDVIEW are not generally grounds for massive deletion of text, unless the problem is truly egregious.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with Richwales. I have reverted the edits in question. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you give more about the prose and construction of sentences probs in the article?. Suresh 5 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Further removal of content
I just reverted your latest series of edits which did basically the same thing again - removed large amounts of content without any meaningful explanation. If you feel material needs editing or removing on this scale then take it to the article talk page for a reasoned discussion. In a collaborative project it is not acceptable to chop out large sections of articles like this with no discussion, and I see that has already been explained to you more than once. Editing in this fashion does not improve the encyclopedia and causes a great deal of inconvenience for other editors who need to try and work out what you have done and why, and then repair the article. Please listen to the advice you have already been given here. Thank you. Begoon &thinsp; talk 12:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Begoon. But can you show me the diffs to show I have removed large tracts of the article except for the fact that I have removed a section on drug-related offences. Also, please examine in detail, the overall changes made in the article. Suresh 5 (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I have added refs to the article, which is one of the reasons, the GAN of this article failed, please restore the refs. Suresh 5 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The "diff" showing you removed large amounts of content is my revert: +11,319 bytes
 * Of your 16 edits, (here is a cumulative diff: ) only one added content: you described it as "restiring section "Ancient Tang China"" - which is a section you had removed.
 * You only made one other edit summary "There are many other offences like adultery which carries maximum death penalty in some countries." - which does not explain the associated edit.
 * You removed this section: - no explanation.
 * You removed this section: - no explanation.
 * You removed this section: - no explanation.


 * You removed this section: - no explanation
 * The main place I can see where you added references is this one:. But the reference addition is mixed in with unexplained content changes and removal. If you want to restore the references, go ahead - if you want to alter content, discuss or describe the changes.

There's much more - but this is the point - you cannot expect other editors to go through your edits and work out what you did when you have neither discussed nor described the changes. The only sensible thing I could do was revert and ask you to discuss. I have now spent a lot of time doing this. You had no need to ask me to tell you what content you removed - you removed it - other editors now need to go through the edits in detail to work out what, where and why because you haven't described or discussed it, despite being asked to do that above. Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Now I look even harder I see that some of the content I referenced was moved rather than deleted. I apologise for that. Nevertheless, you make it very hard for others to understand what you have done, and when all that can be seen is a series of edits removing content amounting to 11,000 bytes plus with no clear explanations, then unless other editors spend a long time reviewing it, they will assume the worst. I'm sure you were trying to improve the article, but you need to do it in such a way that people can clearly understand what you were doing - and this has been already pointed out to you when Richwales said: you need to explain your reasoning (preferably on the article's talk page); otherwise, you may find others misinterpreting your mass deletions as vandalism and undoing your work.. That was good advice. I'm sorry if you feel I was overly harsh above, but that is what will happen if edits are unclear like this, especially coming so soon after another editor reverted similar removals. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

--  RAT  -.-   Poke it  00:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 North India floods
I have made some comments at Peer review/2013 North India floods/archive1. Please let me know if you would like any follow-up or if you have questions. Best, Peregrine981 (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will examine the review.Suresh 5 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Malala Yousafzai
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Malala Yousafzai you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- 11:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Malala Yousafzai
The article Malala Yousafzai you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Malala Yousafzai for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- 04:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Passports Act, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 2 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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Suresh 5! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  20:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)