User talk:ScitDei

Hello, ScitDei, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ScitDei (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!! ScitDei. I have posted my opinion wrt merger. Also, always post you comments on User's Talk page and not at his user page, as you did in my case. Cheers!!! Jethwarp (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that as you have started merger discussion, it is considered that you support the merger move. Therefore, you are not supposed to again vote like you did at Talk:Makardhwaja - as follows - *Support - Refers to the same person... In any case only one vote per person is counted. This info is for you knowledge for future cases. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm new in Wiki and didn't know it. I'll keep it in mind. Thanx. ScitDei^talk 03:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ScitDei/St. Marys Church ,Noida.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScitDei. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 11:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St. Marys Church, Noida.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 19:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The church does not have any journalist friends I suppose so it is difficult to find citations in newspapers about the church. Could you be more specific about which citations are not acceptable so that I can work to get better resources for the particular point.~~ ScitDei^talk 09:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any citation that is not affiliated with the church will work. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So in this case which are the one which will not work? I have removed the church's official website citations. Any other need to be removed ? ScitDei^talk 03:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Zach Vega: have you forgotten about this article? Please review it.~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 12:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Church, Noida, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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!

Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rajeev Sivshankar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trait (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Saint Thomas Christians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saint Thomas Christians. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Sitush (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have Franciscans on your watch list, but I wonder if you could look at the latest edit to the article. An editor added some material to the article that I believe is a positive addition, but it is unsourced. Should a "citation needed" tag be added, or should it be undone with a clear edit summary saying it can be re-added with appropriate sources? CorinneSD (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edit. I think as per rule an editor can remove the un-referenced content if he thinks is not a fact or not notable enough. But if the editor thinks its just personal view or WP:OR, he /she can remove it with proper edit summary. Since this edit is positive in nature but un-sourced, we can just add a Citation tag and wait for the references. Since I don't know much about the Mexican area, I cant say for sure if this is his personal view or really a fact. If you have some knowledge of it, you could edit it as you think appropriate. If it had been e I would try to find some source for it and if I dont get it I would add a citation tag. But thats me.:) ~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 06:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you belong to WikiProject Catholicism, I speak Spanish and very little English, have expanded the article La Laguna Cathedral, can correct errors ?. Thank You.--83.52.84.86 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about List of people from Washington? --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caritas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was, before I edited it, highly promotional, |sourced only to its own websites and basically a list of branches complete with spamlinks to each. It's light on proper facts, such as funding and expenditure. I cleaned it up, but decided in the end that it was too promotional and self-serving even in my version. It's indubitably notable, so I'll restore and post here shortly for you to try to improve. Let me know if you need any help. I wonder if "Caritas International" would be a better title than the current version anyway? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Thanks for your prompt reply. The article seems not too promotional after your edit. SO I am thinking of moving it to article space with the name Caritas International after tagging it with refimprove. What do you think? ~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 04:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Looking again, it probably doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria now anyway, and I'll watch the page to make sure it doesn't backslide again, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 9 September 2015 (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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScitDei. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Assisi Convent School (noida)".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScitDei. 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]

Your addition to Joseph Vithayathil has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. – Joe (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving the above message you have recreated the page, under a different title. You have made some changes, but the content of the page is still substantially copied, most of it verbatim, from the same source. As you have already been told, persistently infringing copyright may lead to being blocked from editing. Also, the page is blatantly written to promote the reputation of the person it is about, full of laudatory comment intended to impress the reader with what a wonderful person the subject of the page is. Wikipedia content needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and such promotional writing is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: The article has to start somewhere. I understand that it has a promotional tone hence I used my user draft and didn't intent to move it to article space without review like I had mistakenly did the last time. I dont understand why there is so much hate for this person. India has very few people who have been raised to Servant of God status and not having an article on one of them is bad for an encyclopedia, which has article of every thing under the sun and above it, even if it is not notable enough. It seems that my revelation of the source in the article was a mistake. There are scores of articles here which are without sources and hence the so called "copyright violation" cant be checked, but since in my prudence I revealed the source my effort to create a starting base for an article on the person is being blatantly flushed down the drain without any thought to the intent or the time being put it in. Request you to please atleast give back the content on my sandbox. Is writing in my sandbox also a WP:CV?~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained to you on my talk page, we categorically cannot accept copyrighted text on Wikipedia. It is not an acceptable "starting point" for an article and you cannot store it in your sandbox. It has nothing to do with what the article is about. It's one of Wikipedia's legal responsibilities and you need to take it seriously.

Are you implying that you have added copyright violations to other articles? Whether or not you list the source of the copyrighted text is irrelevant. I spotted the copyvio in Joseph Vithayathil using an automated tool that checks the text against a large database of websites and other sources. Even if that tool didn't exist, any teacher can spot blatant plagiarism. The entire article was copied and pasted from a website and I struggle to see how that could have taken any time or effort.

You have had enough warning now. If you continue to add copyrighted material you will be blocked from editing. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such a welcoming correction. So that's how Administrators treat new editors. No wonder serious editors are dwindling and "editing for fun" ones are increasing. What kind of Admin has no clue about an editors past contributions and threatens them in every post that they will be blocked? and who understands "There are scores of articles here which are without sources... " to mean "I have added copyvio to other articles too...block me". --~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 09:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't feel welcomed, but you have actually been around quite a while – long enough to know that copying and pasting an entire webpage into Wikipedia isn't okay. Your dismissive attitude above ("so-called 'copyright violation'") and the fact that you immediately recreated it with the same copyright-violating material—after I'd informed you that such material could not be hosted on Wikipedia even as a draft—is not encouraging. I am afraid that you will be blocked if you continue in this vein, that is just a fact.

I was asking if you had, since I don't see how you would know about "scores" of copyvios otherwise. If you are aware of articles that are copyright violations, then please tag them for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio}}. – Joe (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson:@Joe Roe: I am sorry if I appeared rude earlier. Hope you wont keep any ill feeling against me and wouldn't mind reviewing the article in the current form? --~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 05:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no ill will. Thank you for understanding and recreating the article without using copyrighted text. It looks good to me. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScitDei! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 07:10, Tuesday, January 2, 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

Additionally, your signature appears to go against WP:SIGAPP, which says to avoid markup that enlarges text.

Further, your markup seems to be intended to use the Algerian font if it's available and otherwise use Italic, but I don't think it could work, both because the font markup requires the word "face" and because "Italic" is not a face.

Please change

~~ [[User:ScitDei|<font color="Green" size="3.5pt" style="Algerian" face="Italic">ScitDei</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:ScitDei|Wanna talk?]]</sup> : ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?}

to

~~ [[User:ScitDei|<span style="color:Green; font-family:Algerian">ScitDei</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:ScitDei|Wanna talk?]]</sup> : ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?}

—Anomalocaris (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScitDei. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Assisi Convent School (Noida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources establishing notability of the school. GNG is not met.

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. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Assisi Convent School (Noida) 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/Assisi Convent School (Noida) 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.

WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]