User talk:EditorFromAsia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, EditorFromAsia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

Hi there! 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 Organiser (newspaper) 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. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you EditorFromAsia (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Calicut Review[edit]

The article Calicut Review has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Articles about periodicals (magazines, newspapers, academic journals, and similar) are required to meet notability criteria by citing significant commentary in independent reliable secondary sources. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) specifies criteria for judging the notability of a periodical through reliable sources showing its impact. Calicut Review does not meet the criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aboobackeramani, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Aboobacker Amani (Calicut Review)[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 Aboobacker Amani (Calicut Review) 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 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. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Aboobacker Amani (Calicut Review), a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Al Ameer son. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Calicut Review#Online magazine[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Calicut Review#Online magazine. You are requested to provide a reliable source for your claim that this magazine has a print circulation of 7000 copies. Thanks. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been actively editing since my above post, but that you have not provided the requested source for your claim. I do suppose that you base your writings on reliable sources and thus can comply with the demand for verification. But should you passively keep ignoring the request, we are bound to regard your claim as a falsification, and online magazines are treated in another way than are print magazines. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]