Bobgali

Hi, thanks for showing interest in the article Marina beach. But I guess you miss to read the word "Urban" there. I know Marina beach is not second longest beach. It's seconf longest "urban" beach. See the aricle urban beach if you have any doubts or raise an issue on the talk page. Thanks again.--Challengethelimits (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Boing! said Zebedee. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of Ezhavas because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! I have reverted your revert of Sitush's recent edit, because his action was in line with current consensus and yours was not. If you wish to change the consensus, please discuss it on the article talk page first - you cannot simply choose to revert consensus unilaterally -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please also be aware that there are discretionary sanctions applicable to articles related to castes or other social groups. The standard notification is as follows...

So please do not try to force your desired change against consensus, or you may be subject to those sanctions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted you again at List of Ezhavas. Please could you review the policy at WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

• My reading of WT:INB#Caste identification leads me to conclude that it applies to all caste classifications, not just varna (even if one editor in the discussion did not agree with that - the key point is that there are many people who disagree with the entire caste system, and people should not be denoted as being of any specific caste - varna or jati - unless they self-identify). Judging by a number of prior discussions I have seen since, that appears to be the understanding of other editors working in this area too. Finally, even if you were right, edit warring was not the way to proceed - what you should have done, as I had already informed you, was discuss the issue on the article talk page and *not* just reinsert the contested material - the onus is on the editor wanting to insert, or reinsert, contested material to seek consensus in support of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC) (correction - see underscore and strike -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC))Reply

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia works on consensus, and the current consensus is to omit caste identification unless it can be shown that a living person self-identifies as a member of the caste (many do not, for good reasons), so if you want to add the contested material, then you will need to seek a consensus for it. The onus is on the person wanting to include contested material to provide consensus, not on those wanting it omitted - so until you have a consensus for including the material, which you do not currently have, then you must not add it. You were informed of the discretionary sanctions applicable to this topic area (which give me the power, as an admin, to act against you if I believe you are editing inappropriately, without any requirement for prior democratic discussion), yet you repeated the contested addition. Finally, edit warring is always wrong, even if you are right about the content. If you agree to stop edit warring to insert the contested material, and wait to see if you can get a consensus for its addition, then I will unblock you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I must apologise for an error in my message above, which possibly made it misleading - I have struck the error and underscored the correction. (But the point remains that when disputed content is being discussed, especially when it relates to BLP, you should leave it out unless a consensus in favour of including it is reached) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I tnink you may be a little confused, Bobgali. I didn't mention BLPCAT but rather referred people to my standard advisory explanation at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists in this edit. Subsequently, I mentioned that in addition to the comments contained there, there is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise people by caste (this applies to dead people, as well as the living). I accept that the two pieces of guidance may be confusing because they are not quite talking about the same thing and the first one allows some leeway that the second does not. It is the first one that the community has been relying on for the content of these lists because categories are themselves a special case.

It is a messy situation and the current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:INB#Caste_identification, which I also referred to later, may cause it to change. That discussion is not going to end any time soon, so I wouldn't worry about being unable to participate in it: this block will be a long time finished before that discussion is.. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to P. V. Narasimha Rao, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Marek.69 ^talk 07:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Mannathu Padmanabhan3, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria 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 "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mata Amritanandamayi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Mann's death was considered "mysterious."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/an-attempted-to-attack-mata-amritanandamayi-dies/1/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mata Amritanandamayi page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Nisha Rajagopal, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Gayathri Venkataraghavan, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Rami Rahim, 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). 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. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 11:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Bobgali. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rami Rahim, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply