Rashkeqamar, you are invited to the Teahouse!

edit
 

Hi Rashkeqamar! 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 Cordless Larry (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

edit

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to India does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Baahubali2

edit

Plz update...its 850 crores RohanX123 (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

About Bahubali

edit

Hello Bahubali is a Telugu Film. All its content is First Made in Telugu and then Dubbed to more than 5 languages like Tamil,malayalam,kannada,Hindi & English. Sir you can't give credit to Tamil..It's Telugu film.Even if an actor acts in the film from other lang ,it don't become Tamil film..If that is the case.we should change for thousands of films.i.humbly request you to change the lang section from Telugu Tamil to only Telugu and delete tamil Ramtejvarma (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Babhubali the beginning

edit

Hello Also please delete Tamil from the lang list in Bahubali the beginning also Ramtejvarma (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

May 2017

edit

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of highest-grossing Indian films. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Diff: [1] The values you changed are no longer consistent with the references.[2][3] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

And re: this, if you want to limit the gross values of Hindi films to not include dubs, you need to seek consensus via discussion on the article's talk page. You are changing the status quo with no authority to do so and you have been reverted, so per WP:BRD, you need to seek consensus. Typically when we talk about worldwide gross, we're talking about all money made in theatres, and this would intuitively include dubs. When a new Marvel Avengers film is released in China, do you think they only show it in English? No, they dub it, and we include those figures. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I consider this vandalism as well, since the source clearly says 730 crore worldwide, not 718. Also, you removed the Estimation template, which is not constructive. That belongs there per WT:ICTF consensus. Check archives. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

And this would be considered vandalism as well, since the source says 792 crore, not 743. If you vandalize an article again, your editing privileges will be revoked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Welcome!

edit

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

May 2017

edit

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Re: this talk page edit, it is a very basic concept in the world of academia that you do not copy content from one place and paste it into another. This is something that most children learn in school. "Don't copy off your neighbor." "Don't copy from the encyclopedia." No different here. All prose is considered protected by copyright the moment it is "fixed" or published. See Berne convention. Copying content is intellectually dishonest and lazy, I personally have no tolerance for it, and it will absolutely result in the interruption of your editing privileges should you do it again. There are times when we can extract small excerpts under fair use, but there are rules to that as well. We typically format quotations using quote marks and we don't copy entire blocks of text as you did from this source. Familiarise yourself with our copyright policies. I've had to redact your comment. If you wish to re-frame your post, you will need to do so entirely in your own words. Should do so, please place your comment underneath the response from Rajan51. Do not touch the redacted template, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

June 2017

edit

  Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Cattle slaughter in India. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Tyler Durden (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cattle slaughter in India. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
The sources you cited do not directly support the content you have written. Your edits clearly constitute as WP:OR. Also, until there is WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, you are bound to maintain WP:STATUSQUO. Tyler Durden (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

ARBIPA sanctions alert

edit
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

Tyler Durden (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Bhakti Rathod

edit
 

The article Bhakti Rathod has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Coderzombie (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Bhakti Rathod for deletion

edit
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bhakti Rathod 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Rathod 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. Coderzombie (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your 2003 source was not appropriate for 2015 Indian Science Congress ancient aircraft controversy

edit

It clearly wasn't a comment on the Congress so I've reverted you. Please don't do this sort of thing again. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Unnecessary citations

edit

Please do not add extraneous citations like you did at WP:Tufail Ahmed. Please see WP:CITEKILL. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

ARBIPA sanctions reminder

edit

Hello Raskeqamar, you have added a contentious WP:LABEL at Burhan Wani, which was just rejected by RegentsPark. This is a sure fire way of inviting sanctions. I hope it was unintentional, and you will refrain from such edits in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Toilet

edit

Re: this, subjective, hyperbolic terms like "blockbuster", "super hit", "failure" and "flop" are not welcome in this neutral encyclopedia. We care more about objective data, and when the majority of reliable sources have a general opinion on a film's performance, we still use neutral wording.

Re: this, what's significant about a five-day total? Noting the first day is reasonable. Noting the first weekend is reasonable. Noting the first week is reasonable. But five days? What's the point of that? Will you come back and note the 9 day total? The 17 day total? The 364 day total?

Re: this, we write for a global audience, so using abbreviations that are known only to Indians within a specific geographical region is not how we typically do business. You should be writing for a global audience and clarifying such abbreviations as you write. See WP:ABBREV. Should you wish to resubmit this content with the above in mind, that would be nice. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sources generally not required in lead

edit

hi. Thanks, but see WP:LEAD20. Material sourced in the body of the article doesn't need sourcing in the lead. Sorry, WP:LEAD, can't fix that on my iPad as a drop down is in the way. Doug Weller talk 06:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

September 2017

edit

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 06:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Akbar. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Sana Dua

edit
 

The article Sana Dua has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

1st Runner-up in Indian beauty pageant. Fails WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Sana Dua for deletion

edit
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sana Dua 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sana Dua 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. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

October 2017

edit

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Other Backward Castes does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Please stop uploading copyrighted images to Commons and trying to use them here. It is against our policies (and not legal). Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Briana Blair

edit
 

The article Briana Blair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO only award nominations with no wins

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Briana Blair

edit
 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Briana Blair, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Yasmin Scott

edit
 

The article Yasmin Scott has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO notability. Trivial tabloid coverage, no major accomplishments.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. --Animalparty! (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Yasmin Scott for deletion

edit
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yasmin Scott 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasmin Scott 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. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Notice of Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions (biographies of living people)

edit
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Kristine Zedek

edit
 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kristine Zedek 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 real person or group of people, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gbawden (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Kristine Zedek for deletion

edit
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kristine Zedek 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristine Zedek 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. Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Warning

edit

You added poor quality content here and then after it was removed, you reinserted it with a deceptive summary "revert vandalism". THat is not on. Given that you are the one looking to add content, you have to discuss on the talk page to seek inclusion. —SpacemanSpiff 13:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Citations

edit

Regarding edits like this one: Please don't insert random citations to already-sourced content, if you are not adding any new content. The sentence already has three books by historians as references: there is no need to add a scroll.in article, which is not WP:HISTRS-compliant. utcursch | talk 15:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You did this again here, here, and here. Citations are not required in the lead if the lead only summarizes the content already sourced in the article body. Please see WP:CITELEAD. utcursch | talk 16:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to join Women in Red

edit
 
Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.14% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
  • Our priorities for November:

The Women in Red World Contest

  • Continuing from month to month:

#1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

November 2017

edit

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Feroze Gandhi does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

December 2017

edit

Hi Rashkeqamar, I appreciate your contributions to the article Virat Kohli, but it is always advisable to wait for the completion of the match to update statistics and relevant records. Also, please leave an edit summary after editing. It helps other editors to monitor the activity in an article. Thanks. MT TrainDiscuss 12:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

edit

Hello, Rashkeqamar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

WP:NPA

edit

Refrain from making personal attacks such as you did on[4], those edits were not vandalism. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

A page you started (Nastik (2018 film)) has been reviewed!

edit

Thanks for creating Nastik (2018 film), Rashkeqamar!

Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and Season's Greetings.

To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Abishe (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

A page you started (The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017) has been reviewed!

edit

Thanks for creating The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, Rashkeqamar!

Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Abishe (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Tik Tik Tik (2017 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tik Tik Tik (2017 film). Since you had some involvement with the Tik Tik Tik (2017 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Nastik (upcoming film)

edit
 

The article Nastik (upcoming film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines because the film seems to be in development limbo, so that an article is crystal balling.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply