Hello, Agrawal.akshay98! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! /wia /tlk 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi Agrawal.akshay98! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Classfever and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Akshay Agrawal and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kikichugirl was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Akshay Agrawal and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— kikichugirl ^oh hello! 22:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by FoCuSandLeArN was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Akshay Agrawal and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Akshay Agrawal and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Akshay Agrawal and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by FoCuSandLeArN was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Classfever and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Has Tasks and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Perhaps this is meant to be a draft template. It has been submitted as a draft article, but has no article content. If it is meant to be a draft article, please do not submit it to AFC until it is ready for review. If it is meant to be a draft template, please ask for template help. The Teahouse would be a good place to ask for template help.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Baahubali Duology (Film Series) and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man on Fire (Kelman novel), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

RadioFan (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not know what you are doing, and you clearly do not with templates, please do not move them to the Template: namespace Instead please ask for help. I have tidied most of this mess up for you. Please note that competence is required, and that help is always available by using {{Helpme}} Fiddle Faddle 13:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

Templates such as this are not ever likely to be approved to appear own an article and are, from experience, like to be summarily deleted. The Teahouse may be a useful area to enquire further about this.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Template:Has Tasks and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 13:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

You must, please, get assistance with Template creation. You do not understand the no include and include only deployment at all. Also you create templates in the Template: namespace and submit them for review. This is not appropriate. Deploy {{Helpme}} on your talk page when you need help. Do not assume you know what you are doing.

I have made, now, corrections to three of your templates. There is extra stuff you need to know

The documentation is absent. You need to find out with precision how to create and populate a 'documentation' section. Advising you is beyond the scope of a review. Please use the Helpme process to get the help you need.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Template:Nandi Award for Best Director and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 13:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RadioFan was:

Please follow the instructions of previous reviewers before resubmitting. Problems persist.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Template:Nandi Award for Best Director and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RadioFan (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Do not move templates to and form the Template: and Draft: namespaces just because you feel like it. If and when it is accepted the redirect you created would need to be deleted anyway. All you are doing is making work for people. The Template: namespace one was deleted because the rules say it should have been Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent (talk · contribs). I understand and I apologise for the same. However, the Draft Template was deleted without an opportunity to contest its deletion. Also, I do not remember creating a redirect. There was a browser specific issue which caused this confusion because had created the Template thorugh this link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Template) but forgot to prefix "Template:". I have now put up the template again at Draft:Template:Nandi Award for Best Director but have not submitted it for review. I would appreciate if you could point me in the right direction as to what Specifically is wrong with it as I have attempted to take care of the Include/Noinclude and Documentation issues. I plan to resumbit it after weve sorted this out. It would help if you told me what to instead of simply rudely telling me that all i have done is wrong. Cheers.

Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft template was not deleted. It was moved. by me, to the Draft: namespace after you created a draft template own the Template: namespace. I then caused the redirect (a redirect is always left behind by a move) to be deleted. You then, for reasons I do not understand, moved the draft template to the Template: namespace and then back to the Draft: namespace.

When you do not know what you are doing, ask someone. I have already aimed you at {{helpme}}, but you ignored that.

I doubt there was a browser specific issue.

I think you need to avoid the creation of templates except in the draft space until you know more. A badly formed template affects 100% of th pages it is deployed on.

I will look at your draft in a short while. I cannot, however, accept it, nor can anyone else, until an administrator undoes the problem you created by deleting the Template: space redirect you left behind. Fiddle Faddle 15:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have solved the remaining issues. Please do not accuse me of rudeness. When people disregard advice and run around making work for other people those other people reserve the right to be direct. If I am ever rude I promise you will be very certain that I have been. Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent (talk · contribs). I went through the changes on the template. I see that all previous issues had been successfully sorted out. WHat you have fixed is content linking, which wasnt brought up. Anyways, Thank you for your time and patience. Would it be fine if I copied the template on to the template page from the draft space and remove the speedy deletion tag? or wait for the deletion to take place and then move the template to the name space? Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your swift and timely responses though. Also, for future reference, how should i create a template? Thorugh the Wizard right ? and hsoul i submit it for review ? or directly use it and move it to the template name space ? Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the totally redundant link to the "main article", removed your signature which should not be in the documentation and also linked the content, a subject on which opinions differ. Some like redlinks in there, others do not. I don't much care either way but am marginally in favour of their being present.

Resubmit. There is no deadline. You will find that the draft cannot be moved over the template now for technical reasons (0.9 probability). You are also not allowed to remove the speedy deletion template for a page you created yourself, whether you knew you had or not.

Wikipedia has many difficult rules and technical limitations.

The best thing to do with a template while you are learning it is to create it in your own user sandbox: User:Agrawal.akshay98/sandbox, and then test how it works by transcluding it into another sandbox such at User:Agrawal.akshay98/test area, which you do by using the format {{User:Agrawal.akshay98/sandbox}}. IN this way you will see whether the includeonly the noinclude and the categories work correctly.

Once everything genuinely works you can move your sandbox to the Template: namespace yourself, directly. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you have created few to-do pages within article talk pages. While its good to have a to-do list, I fail to understand why a separate page has been created for it?! You could simple include the list on article's talk page itself. Please refrain from creating such multiple short-duration usability pages. You have created Talk:Indian Institute of Technology Bombay/to do, Talk:National Institute of Design/to do, Talk:Filmfare Award for Best Director/to do, Talk:S. S. Rajamouli/to do , and probably more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs). I had simply added the To Do Template. I suppose the Template itself creates a page. If there is a way to implement the to do template wihtout it creating aseparate page, pl do let me know, but I believe thats the default behaviour. If you click 'Refresh' in the to do template box on the talk page, the list is shown there itself.

Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in the first place why are you adding Template:To do to the talk pages and then filing them up with the list? Why not simply write whatever you want to on the talk page directly? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TO allow contributors and editors to work on a single list instead of being divided between various peopels posts. Posts are used primarily to get opinions, discuss disputes etc. A to do list i shonestly more agile that way and its mroe visible so it encourages editing. If anybody has anythign to add, it can simply be put in the to do list instead of creating a new section. It helps reduce clutter and ensures segregation. Whats your opinion? Cheers. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever! Carry on.... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nandi Award for Best Director, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wiae was:

I'd be willing to accept this after some cleanup:

• the infobox at the top of the page appears to be duplicated halfway down the page;
• the lists in the "Statutes" section are just copied from the statute itself. I think it would be better if you could rephrase in your own words what powers and duties the Institutes are granted.

Once you've done this, feel free to ping me or ask on my talk page and I'll take another look. Thanks,

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Institutes of Technology Act and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wiae ★ /tlk 15:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institutes of Technology Act, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

/wiae ★ /tlk 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Akshay Agrawal and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devopam was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Classfever and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Devopam (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classfever, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Akshay Agrawal and 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 reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 30 January 2016 (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).

Agrawal.akshay98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi Vanjagenije (talk · contribs), I plead that I should be unblocked on the grouds that * I haven't actually done anything of what constitutes Wikipedia SockPuppetry Policy ** I havent made problematic IP edits ** I havent tried to skew opinion/consensus ** I havent "Piggybacked" ** Havent used 'Sleeper Accounts' to do any of the above ** Havent used an alternate account. * The conditions used to open the investigation are seemingly harmless. Classfever was approved by a wiki reviewer. Proof of that is on the talk page. And Draft:Akshay Agrawal is simply a draft which was rejected and remains so. The notable alumni addition was done after the Classfever article approval thinking that that is notability enough; and there was one other person who i had added and had reffed so. * I understand that the Editor Interaction Analyzer and User Compare report show the common edited pages. Please go through the edits made by each account and you will see that there is no pattern and nothing to support that same edits were made again 'by exploiting multiple accounts'. * I have been a constructive and non-disruptive Wiki contributer. ** I have created 4 articles and 2 templates ** Have been approved as an AWB user ** I have 808 edits out of which only 9 have been ever deleted.

I REQUEST you to PLEASE unblock me. You can monitor my activities if you wish. If there are things you wouldnt want me to do, pl let me know and i will ensure they arent done. I personally believe a warning is a better teacher than throwing the kid out of the house. By blocking me, youre throeing me out of the house, without giving me a chance to improve or even telling me where exactly I made a mistake. If not completely unblock, pl reduce the block to some resonably short period of time? Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll have a better chance of being unblocked (or of having the block duration reduced) if you make the unblock request from your original account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:05, 3 February 2016 (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.

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).

Agrawal.akshay98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), I dont understand what you're saying. This is the only account I have. AnonymousBananas is not me and was never me. I took the pain of check its edit history and if you go through mine, you will see that there is nothing that ties us together. I had even put up what i intend to edit next on my user page. There is some gap which i am unable to grasp. For the record, I am not AnonymousBananas sockpuppet. How can i appeal this from that account? Pl dont block my right to edit talk pages too yet, i'd like to talk about this and (hopefully) be unblocked or at least reduce my block time. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk)

Decline reason:

I have reached the same conclusion as the fellow reviewing admins, after comparing contributions from all accounts. In light of this and in consideration of the CheckUser block confirmation, this request has been declined. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (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.

Only the truth can set you free. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), then please free me (Read as "Unblock me"), for the truth has been said above. Also, I'd like to see the evidence that is being used here... Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), you there ? Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk · contribs), anybody ? Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser note for reviewing admin Although most of the technical data in the archived SPI files is  Stale, Agrawal.akshay98 is editing from the same city and ISP as other Anonymousbananas socks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what to say. It is obvious to me that you are aither the same person or closely related to the person who was using accounts Anonymousbananas, Upasana98 and Space.mountain9. Any admin can check deleted contributions and see that. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2016 (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).

Agrawal.akshay98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), Vanjagenije (talk · contribs), Ponyo (talk · contribs), Guys, lets for a moment assume that I am the same person as the other accounts. Those account made malicious edits with malicious intent. This one has nothing but contributed in good faith. I am now adhering to wiki policy and have understood how wiki works and how i can helpful without being problematic, youre still gonna block me? by this metric youre saying I can never contribute to wiki ever again? I find it slightly unfair because youre saying that some account using the country's largest ISP (MTNL) from one of the most populated cities in the country (Mumbai) is me? I learnt my lesson. I am sorry. More than my words, my edit history on account says that. I am REQUESTING/BEGGING you to tell me what it will take me to allow to edit Wiki again. Another account ? Undertaking that I wont do certain activities ever again ? What is it that will simply allow me to edit and contribute to wiki preferably under this very account? Pl dont block my talk page edit rights. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Admitting to the sockpuppetry is a good start, however you should make any further unblock requests under the main account name. Offhand I have to say that I'm very concerned that you had to be forced to admit the truth, as someone who is truly repentant would have confessed this from the start. Also concerning is that last month you had somewhat of a run-in with FiddleFaddle, where you apparently accused him of being rude for trying to correct some mistakes you made and where you disregarded advice. What I'm worried about is that if you are unblocked, you will continue to engage in problematic behaviors since you still had issues with editing as recently as last month and that you're only confessing to some of the things you've done after it became clear that none of the prior editors believed that you were unrelated. My personal advice would be to take some time off of Wikipedia and come back in at least 6 months and try for an unblock under the main account name. I just don't think that we can really trust you to make good editing choices at this point in time, given that this account has at least some history of editing issues and you had to be forced to confess to the sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 4 February 2016 (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.

You can start by telling the truth. That is often a useful strategy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) A. You still havent answered "How can I get back to editing Wiki"

B. Maybe you're right, the truth WILL solve this. I accept that I was all those users. I wont insult you by lying any further. However, I was 'earnest in saying that i've learnt my lesson and it wont happen again. I only lied because i really really learnt my lesson and really really want to continue contributing to wiki'. If you used that to lure me in and you're gonna completely block me, at least let me know how I can get back to editing. I started off as a Wiki editor who would personally get offended when my edits were undone or when users like 'Sitush' wouldnt agree with me. I failed to see they were more experienced and knew what they were doing. However, they too werent very nice to me when I asked "Why not?". Also, though I still dont find anything wrong in creating and submitting drafts for Classfever and Akshay Agrawal, I know that me trying to spam wiki with links to 'Classfever' was wrong ( Which I have NOT done with this account ). What im tryin go tsay is, whatever mistakes i made with those account, i havent made this time. Upasa98 was used to skew consensus. 'Parthiv' Shah was up for deletion. I tried to save it, and it could have been, for the guy is truly notable in th eIndian Design space, but i didnt even attempt to skew consensus becaus ei have learnt that thats a bad thing. i spent a few hours reffing various rating sites to 'S.S. Rajamouli' article in the critical reception, but someone removed all that and siad "IMDb only pls" me on the other accounts would have lost it. But this time i didnt. In Short, yes it was me previously. But 'I have learnt Wiki (finally)'. Pl unblock me. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs), when you say main account, you mean Anonymousbananas right? I understand what you're saying. But I'd like to correct what you have to say about my 'run-in' with FiddFaddle. As you can see on my talk page, an error was made due to a technocal glitch which did not append "Template:" to the beginning of my "Draft:" template. I listened to what he had to say and genuinely enquired into what needed to be done. Plus I have created templates after that which have had no problems at all. That is the only editing history issue I know of. I had problems uploading images. I accidentally uploaded a nonfree (logo) image to wikimedia commons which was deleted. I didnt udnerstand it. I went to the live chat IRC and spent a good deal of time and then I uploaded the classfever loko to enwiki because i understood thats how/where it had to put up and not wikimedia commons.

Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs), Ive appealed using Anonymousbananas (talk · contribs) on its talk page. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Agrawal.akshay98. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]