User talk:Deepcruze

Referencing

referencing tool here: [1]

Thanks. Deepcruze (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

August 2015

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)

Hi Deepcruze, Please ensure that you have the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box ticked in your Preferences under Editing. It will warn you if you forget to enter an edit summary. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks fellow user. Deepcruze (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

NEED for help

can you help me by work on Navjit Buttar (Director) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arepunjabi (talk • contribs) 05:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I will sure help if this article is as per Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Deepcruze (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hi Deepcruze, congratulations on finding good sources! I appreciate your latest edits. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks fellow user. Deepcruze (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you for adding sources.

		The Special Barnstar
		You deserve this barnstar because you added a lot of source here on wikipedia. Great work! I apreciate it. Terabar (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you add please add secondary sources on Caste System in India#Views of Ambedkar ?

Hello Deepcruze! A user marked the above section as citing primary sources. See [2] Can you please add secondary sources to this section? If you are able to do then please do it. Best regards, Terabar (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Terabar i think you are victim of casteist biasness of some of the Forward caste wikipedia contributors. But everyone must follow all wikipedia standards and guidelines. Deepcruze (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Star ratings

Hi there, re: this edit, star ratings have little value to the project, and very few articles under the scope of WikiProject Film incorporate these ratings. Note this article for instance. Critical response starts with critical aggregation totals (we don't have reliable sources for that in Indian cinema) but then the bulk of the content is prose. In part, this is because the ratings do not tell us anything specific and tend to only promote or demote a film without any context. As this is an encyclopedia, context is the only important thing. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for help. Deepcruze (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

October 2015

Your recent editing history at List of highest-grossing Indian films shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I will stay away from edit war surely. Deepcruze (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Deepcruze, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Terabar (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Deepcruze. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Deepcruze. 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)

Sourcing

Please read WP:OVERCITE. You have a tendency to massively over-source simple statements of fact. It isn't necessary. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I will avoid over sourcing where there is not necessary

Deepcruze (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Need your help sir

Hello, Sir I want your help in the creation of a new page for a construction company.Sir I read all the instructions and followed same but the created page was deleted so sir can u pls help me in the creation of the page.Recwiki (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Recwiki (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure i will help. Explain futher please. Deepcruze (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding article publishing

Sir Can you please help me to publish this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bahujan_Samaj_Party_Madhya_Pradesh_Unit Gauravsingh14 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Gauravsingh14 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gauravsingh14 i think you are victim of casteist biasness of some of the Forward caste wikipedia contributors. But everyone must follow all wikipedia standards and guidelines. Deepcruze (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Deepcruze. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I never had an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia. I follow each and every Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Deepcruze (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Deepcruze. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Deepcruze. 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)

Sigh

How was this useful? Have you read WP:OVERCITE yet? I've just reverted it because there is no way anyone is likely to trawl through that many citations, nor should there be any need to do so. The list of past presidents seemed pointless and you included redlinks in the See also section, as well as citations there that should never exist. It seems that you are not learning. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Be careful these days. Some of our overlords have opined that even if an user is continually committing errors, it must not be the same editor to repeatedly point them out lest they feel harassed. :3 ∯WBG^converse 17:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

They have? Is this related to the Fram debacle? Do I care? - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Noting

that it is formally required to communicate with others, in case of disagreements. The way you are editing, it won't take long for you to end up blocked. ∯WBG^converse 18:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been looking at your contributions and your lack of engagement with other editors. Since you were given a discretionary sanctions alert last September, I'm quite confident you're aware of the requirements for editing articles in the area of social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. I believe you are falling short of those standards, so I'm seriously considering issuing you with a topic ban from those pages. Before I take any action, I'd like to give you the opportunity to give your view on that potential sanction. As I'm aware that I'm not the only uninvolved admin scrutinising your contributions, I'd strongly advise you to engage with this thread, before another admin decides to sanction you, which they may do at any time. --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Deepcruze, are you going to respond rather than just carry on editing? Your latest - here - is poor given that everything else is cited to academic works. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I've just reverted Caste system in India to its state prior to your involvement last month. You have been overciting again and using sensationalised/non-expert etc news sources to support claims for which a vast library of academic literature exists. Worse, you were using at least one of those news reports to support a claim concerning the Gupta Empire that has originated from study results announced recently by a team of four geneticists when it has long been accepted on Wikipedia that using such studies even directly (let alone through a prism of mainstream, non-specialist journalism) is dubious at best. Quite how four geneticists can overturn the long-held thoughts of countless other experts needs to be assessed, ie: we need to give the academic community time to review the implications of their claims. Yes, it could be a Gallileo moment but it is more likely to be poor science - that's how it usually works. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Did they even publish their research somewhere? [The institute is not at all reputed, FWIW.] ∯WBG^converse 05:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't look deeper than the cited news article, Winged Blades of Godric but I have now and see that the geneticists are/were from the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics. The PR blurb for the lead scientist mentions no publications, which is odd for a potted biography of an academic on an official institution page. However, I suspect this is the research being referred to - the follow-up letters make for an interesting critique! - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not manage to find the paper; thanks! Will read ...

Knew that NIBG was behind it; that's an institute which have often indulged in dubious projects of questionable scholarly merit and a couple of years back, seemed more interested in pandering to a part. brand of pseudo-historical narrative. Will try to develop the article :-) ∯WBG^converse 18:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

NIBG is threat to neutrality on Wikipedia. Its a propaganda tool by some fake historians. Deepcruze (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note these discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 20:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I don't think that Deepcruze has any plans to stop using Wikipedia as a platform for their political soapboxing. His history shows that he is completely unresponsive to any concerns raised on this talk page or elsewhere.

Now he has just created an emotional article where information is not supported by the sources. See Vandalism of Ambedkar statues, which starts with "Deliberate vandalism of B. R. Ambedkar statues has been happening in India by the caste supremacists till present day since late 1980 assertion by dalits." But I don't see a mention of a "supremacist" or "caste supremacist" anywhere on sources.

Then other sentence claims Ambedkar to be "most revered figure in India" while only one source say "he was also a revered civil rights leader". The article ultimately ends with the claim that "Vandalism of Ambedkar statues is punishable offence under sections 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intending to outrage religious feelings of any class) and 427 (mischief causing damage) of IPC", thus providing a false impression that "vandalism of Ambdekar statues" has been made illegal when the source talks about any vandalism of statues to be a punishable act. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Vandalism of Ambedkar statues is well sourced article and a genuine issue in India for about every social equality loving Indian. It is incident that is deliberate. Words like "supremacist" or "caste supremacist" can be corrected which doesn't means all of the article is false. All mistakes in article can be rectified. But totally deleting article content by @Aman Kumar Goel shows the biasness towards issue same as a White supremacist shows towards a African-American issue. Deepcruze (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Punjabi Parchar TV

Hello, Deepcruze. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Punjabi Parchar TV".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Not learning

You have again added a bunch of unsourced material (at List of Dalits today) and used poor sources (such as the dalit pressure group called Round Table India at Shanti Swaroop Baudh today). Your mission to counter what you have said above is systemic bias has been incredibly disruptive over many years because you seem unwilling to stop, think and listen to advice etc. You seem to be in a rush to promote dalit-centric stuff & you're leaving it to saps like me to clean up swathes of poor content. I, for one, have had enough - it is going to take me weeks to go through your efforts and fix it. I see that at least two admins have had a word with you above, so pinging RexxS for further consideratipn. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I added Sukhadeo Thorat to List of Dalits today and he is a dalit which is a fact. As wikipedia is an open source community, please must try free up bias before deleting Sukhadeo Thorat's name from List of Dalits. Round Table India is not a 'pressure group' but a credible source of news and alternative media portal run by those ignored by mainstream media of India. I am never in rush, i am very slow in article creation for worldwide wikipedia community and for greater good of mankind.

You are demonstrating potential difficulties even in your reply now. If you cannot understand why a "news portal" operated by activists is a poor source, despite your time here, then that is a problem. And it is no good coming here with some evangelical mission but ignoring basic policies such as WP:V. You come across as a warrior and that is not a good position from which to edit neutrally. Note that I did not trim the list of purported dalits because they most certainly are not dalits but rather because there were no sources oresent to verify that they are. I have referred you to User:Sitush/Common#Castelists before, so this should not be news to you. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Deepcruze, when you make edits like this, you are adding unsourced material to an article that you know will be controversial. You're aware that these topics are subject to discretionary sanctions and that you have to be on exceptionally good behaviour when editing them, so why try to push the boundaries? I see that you've also twice avoided answering the question about whether you removed a speedy deletion template while logged out. Did you?

Please understand that I'm seriously considering whether the best course for the encyclopedia would be to topic-ban you entirely from edits that concern Dalits. If you can't learn to supply quality sources, then I don't think we can keep asking the same one or two experienced editors to clean up after you. Please try asking if you're unsure, before editing based on unsatisfactory sources. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I have source for this edit. In future i will cite sources to all my edits. Deepcruze (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

What was the source? Please try to understand that it's not sufficient to add just any old source to support your edits; you must supply a source that is generally accepted as reliable. Did you not understand what I wrote about asking if you're unsure? --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• So you have again restored this Vandalism of Ambedkar statues without following WP:BRD first. Can you tell how "till present day since late 1980 assertion by dalits." has been supported by any of the 8 sources you have bombed in violation of WP:OVERREF?[3] Though I am seeing misrepresentation all over the article, I am still trying to verify the very first sentence of the article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• That Vandalism article is classic Deepcruze, which usually includes synthesis and original research, overciting, overlinking, POV, use of non-RS including Round Table India, op-eds, misrepresentations etc ... I could go on. This has been going on for years and you only ever pay lip-service to any advice or warnings you are given. You really need to stop creating articles for a while, stop working on Dalit stuff for a while, and spread out your efforts so you can better understand how it should be done through genuine on-article interaction with other editors. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• I suggest you read my edit summaries at the Vandalism article & also its talk page. Every time I come across an article you have edited, I have to attempt masses of fixes and they are for pretty much the same reasons. I could probably research & write some of your articles quicker than I can fix the things. If there is anything you do not understand then ask; do similar poor stuff again & you're likely to face sanctions. - Sitush (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see anything has changed for years about this user. See his another recent creation Dalit Lives Matter, which was treated as a hoax on the AfD. Capitals00 (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• You are right about lack of improvement, and the Vandalism article is a coatrack like many others. But I have never yet found an admin who is prepared to push the button. Archives to this page should show others doing as RexxS & Bish have done recently but I think there is perhaps a reluctance to issue more than stern words because of the potential poor optics relating to systemic bias. I've seen similar things in another topic area in the past & anything more than a warning brings out the SJW types in defence, which makes it a nightmare od discussion to justify an action that should be obvious. I can understand but it is frustrating. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rajendra Prasad Singh

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GSS ^💬 17:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a net negative to the encyclopedia. Please see the section [4] above.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 11:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am still learning and i will strictly follow wikipedia guidelines and rules. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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 have been active for at least five years and haven't learned a thing about neutrality etc. As recently as February this year, you created Dalit businesses. It was full of gross misrepresentations of the sources. Even by your poor standards, this one is a shocker. You cannot plead "I am still learning" when you have made so many edits. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Rajendra Prasad Singh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rajendra Prasad Singh 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/Rajendra Prasad Singh (2nd nomination) 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. GSS ^💬 15:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2 Bol

The article 2 Bol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM.

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. GSS ^💬 14:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of National Dastak for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Dastak 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/National Dastak 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. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Dalit Dastak for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dalit Dastak 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/Dalit Dastak 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. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Great Leader Kanshiram

The article The Great Leader Kanshiram has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since September 2019

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. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of The Great Leader Kanshiram for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Great Leader Kanshiram 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/The Great Leader Kanshiram 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.

Donaldd23 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Avantika Hundal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avantika Hundal 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/Avantika Hundal 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.

LucyLucy (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Dr. Ambedkar Student Front of India for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dr. Ambedkar Student Front of India 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/Dr. Ambedkar Student Front of India 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.

JavaHurricane 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Arif Aajakia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arif Aajakia 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/Arif Aajakia 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.

RealKnockout (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia community, I would like you to unblock me. I belong to a very less education background so i was not able to understand/follow or comply by Wikipedia community guidelines in the past due to my lower communication skills. But from past few months i am taking help in getting educated and also learning about Wikipedia guidelines from successful Wikipedia volunteers. As of today i am able to follow all Wikipedia guidelines, rules and regulations as a improved person and proud Wikipedia community member. I request you to unblock me and restore my publishing rights. Deepcruze (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed to HUMANLIVESMATTER, unambiguously (within the limits of the checkuser tool). Note that HUMANLIVESMATTER was simultaneously making an unblock request, claiming not to be a sockpuppet. I'm deeply disappointed here. Yamla (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

• Question from the blocking admin: By what channels have you been learning from these successful Wikipedia volunteers? Please ask them to post here and confirm that you are, in their opinion, now "able to follow all Wikipedia guidelines, rules and regulations as an improved person". Bishonen | tålk 10:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

• Dear Bishonen, from past few months i have followed your contributions to learn and also used YouTube channels of Wikipedia volunteers for understand Wikipedia community with examples [5] and [6] including using Google Search extensively for leaning about Wikipedia. I am not personally in communication with Wikipedia volunteers so i have no ways to ask them to post here and confirm that now i am able to follow all Wikipedia guidelines, rules and regulations as an improved person. But if you unblock me today i can satisfy you with my future activities that i am improved person and by following your footsteps i will contribute positively to Wikipedia community. I am assuring you that you will appreciate me in future for my contributions and you will never regret my unblocking. Deepcruze (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, OK. I misunderstood; I thought you meant you had received personal tuition. I honestly don't think you can learn very much by following my editing; for one thing, I'm an admin, and much of what I do is related to that. No, I'm afraid I won't unblock you, I'll leave it to the uninvolved admin who will come here to review your request. To that admin: if you think so, I suppose you might care to put up the request at AN for community review. Bishonen | tålk 11:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

  Thank you Dear Bishonen, i hope i will be unblocked by uninvolved admin soon. Can't wait to positively contribute to Wikipedia community! Deepcruze (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Your hypocrisy is depressing. Bishonen | tålk 13:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

UTRS appeal #57059

is closed. WP:COMPROMISED. Referred to T&S. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey! @Bishonen: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• I typed up a comment of some sharpness, Deepfriedokra, but why grave-dance. This account ain't never coming back. Why T&S? Reply by mail if you prefer. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC).
  • Compromised. Just an FYI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 Appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia community (respected Bishonen, Venkat TL, LudhianaUser and other honorable members), I would like you to unblock me. I belong to a very less education background so i was not able to understand/follow or comply by Wikipedia community guidelines in the past due to my lower communication skills. But from past few months i am taking help in getting educated and also learning about Wikipedia guidelines from successful Wikipedia volunteers. As of today i am able to follow all Wikipedia guidelines, rules and regulations as a improved person and proud Wikipedia community member. I request you to unblock me and restore my publishing rights. From past few months i have followed your contributions to learn and also used YouTube channels of Wikipedia volunteers for understand Wikipedia community with examples [7] and [8] including using Google Search extensively for leaning about Wikipedia. I am not personally in communication with Wikipedia volunteers so i have no ways to ask them to post here and confirm that now i am able to follow all Wikipedia guidelines, rules and regulations as an improved person. But if you unblock me today i can satisfy you with my future activities that i am improved person and by following your footsteps i will contribute positively to Wikipedia community. I am assuring you that you will appreciate me in future for my contributions and you will never regret my unblocking. Deepcruze (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You do not address the sockpuppetry of account HUMANLIVESMATTER or the claim made by UTRS that your account was compromised. PhilKnight (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

• Deepcruze had pinged me. I am not an admin. Only admins can decide on your appeals for unblock. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Deepcruze, you repeat word for word what you said in January.[9]: "from past few months i am taking help in getting educated and also learning about Wikipedia guidelines from successful Wikipedia volunteers. As of today i am able to follow all Wikipedia guidelines, rules and regulations as a improved person and proud Wikipedia community member." You are completely wasting the time of any and all responding admins. I am removing your talkpage access. I see above that you have already tried appealing via UTRS; you can still do that. Bishonen | tålk 13:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

Nomination of Dalit businesses for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dalit businesses 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/Dalit businesses 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 until the discussion has finished.

Admantine123 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)