Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Hari Singh have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
Hi Juggyevil! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GoingBatty (talk).
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacob Spon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
An article you recently created, Manyavar, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). In addition it is more likely a WP:COVERT. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MickyShy (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Manyavar, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Juggyevil, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Juggyevil|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. MickyShy (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MickyShy You seems to be a new editor even less experienced than me. Please share the proof or logic, that made you to put such serious fake allegations. You have written that I was asked to cease my edit!! When, where and by whom?? Juggyevil (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MickyShy, Because, today there is a wedding in my family, Search my username on insta and check my insta stories after a few hours. I am doing makeup as of now. Manyavar, weeding theme = Can we read me now? Previously, it got deleted twice in CSD:G11 in 2014, 2020 not because of any other reasons. Now please fix the page by yourself and help me to update the page instead.Juggyevil (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! 10mmsocket (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Liz Thank you for correcting my edits, but I have moved it to the mainspace and have started the afd discussion again, since the person is not notable. There is no point to send it to draft. Kindly check if I have done it properly. Juggyevil (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I really don't understand, how someone can call me a sock of Sanketio31. First, you search my name on Google. This is my real profile I use everywhere, check my Instagram profile. Now, I even shared my personal identity with you. It is very unfair that without hearing my part I have been blocked.
Reply to the discussion:
1. Copyediting is something that any new editor will do because it's easy. I really doubt what a new editor can do apart from it. In fact, I still do. According, to this logic, all new people are my sockpuppet. I made 18 edits to Epeolus_cruciger so how am I a sock of Sanketio31?? Can't understand the logic. This page was created by Quetzal1964, so he is also my sock. Is it??
2. All these pages are free from COI. I am not the only one who has a single line, if it is clear delete, then nothing much was there to write. Still, What is the link with Sanketio31??
3. Again, these people have different editing and understanding for Wikipedia is completely different from mine, and so is the reason for rejection. And if you notice properly, now, my afd is getting better as I started nominating pages. Also, I am not that dumb that once I got rejected then I can't fix the gap even in 2nd time.
The difference between me and Sanketio311 lies in the fact that:
1.I don't understand how to report for Sockpuppet
2.I don't know about Speedy deletion
3.I recently started nominating deletion, while he already understands
4.I am recently learning about scripts, and tools like Twinkle and others, while he already understands.
I just saw that, there is an extremely big list of usernames. Apologies, I have not seen much sock pages in the past. Now, on my limited understanding, I am putting myself different. Firstly, I don't use hotcat, or any gadgets in 99% of my edits. Secondly, I don't involve in any COI page or even participate in such pages by any means, not even single.
Sorry, now I am getting emotional, must boldly say that, GeneralNotability can block anyone who started with small afd comment and copyediting of the pages, in short. Sir, am I right? 19:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello, Juggyevil,
As this is a checkuser block, an ordinary administrator can not respond to your unblock request. I'm sorry that it is making you emotional. I came here because I recently closed an AFD that you started. I'll ping GeneralNotability and maybe they, or another checkuser, can respond with details. In case this block request can not be honored, you might read over Wikipedia:Standard offer for other possible avenues of returning to editing. LizRead!Talk!00:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manyavar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! 10mmsocket (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
