Jump to content

User talk:Anonymousbananas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No original research

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Kali Linux. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Meters (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For listening and fixing issues raised. Thank you! Best, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Rochak Inter-College Fest) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Rochak Inter-College Fest, Anonymousbananas!

Wikipedia editor Highfever2015 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The article is a go!

To reply, leave a comment on Highfever2015's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Rollback

[edit]

I've just rolled you back at List of schools in Mumbai. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the format and you do not have consensus. Worse, your edit made a complete mess of the formatting. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush (talk · contribs) we DO have consensus on converting the list to a table and adding the location column. And formatting isnt instant and impossible if you keep doing what youre doing. I had comepleted half the reformatting, and you reverted it without having the patience to wait. Can you PLEASE stop being so irritating ?

Anonymousbananas (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have consensus and it will take a lot longer than 24 hours to get it. This is an extremely tricky issue and has been discussed at WT:INB - the entire treatment of schools in India needs to be examined. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

[edit]

It's completely unacceptable to address fellow editors like this. "Here's how its gonna be", indeed. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and has a policy against personal attacks. If you're feeling frustrated, all the more reason to think twice before you click save. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

[edit]
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Anonymousbananas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

AshLin (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Seriously dude, you gotta read the rules. Do consider yourself in a learning mode! Sitush has 150,000 edits. You dont need to kowtow to him but he makes very reasoned decisions and its worthwhile having a slower conversation & learn the ropes. Plus he's an encyclopaedia on the discussions regarding Wikipedia policy about contents on Indian subjects. We aren't trying to bite you but you got a bum list and we are trying to make it better with you. So slow down, tackle one issue at a time & lets make it NOT an eyesore and of some use! AshLin (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree. I have apologised to him and am working in a mutually beneficial manner with him. Anonymousbananas (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Akshay Agarwal

[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 Akshay Agarwal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, 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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) and Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs). I'd like to appeal unblocking me. Whatever had to be said has been said on the agrawal.akshay98 (talk · contribs) talk page. A summary * I admit to having multiple accounts. * My conduct from this account for malicious and undesirable and abusive in the past. As stated, I've learnt my lesson. Wont happen again/Hasnt happened again. * My conduct from agrawal.akshay98 (talk · contribs) has been purely constructive. As described, my 'run-in' with FiddleFaddle wasnt what it looks. Evidence lies on the talk page of agrawal.akshay98 * Pl unblock me or reduce my block time. * When unblocked, which account will I continue to use? * please please please please please please. Anonymousbananas (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are acting as if actions are being taking against you for no reason. Your actions, and your actions alone, are the reason that you are blocked. Up until yesterday you still stated emphatically "AnonymousBananas is not me and was never me". The 2nd chance process is designed for editors who start off on the wrong foot, not situations involving months of disruption and socking. The community has zero trust in you right now, and the only way to possibly regain that trust is through the standard offer. As there have been respected editors here noting they would support an unblock if the terms of the standard offer are met, I suggest you take the opportunity. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • If you are unblocked, it would be for this account. I still have to say that I'm very concerned that your edit history with the new account still had some issues. When I say that you had issues with FiddleFaddle, I was referring to actions that led to him making this statement:
"I have solved the remaining issues. Please do not accuse me of rudeness. When people disregard advice and run around making work for other people those other people reserve the right to be direct. If I am ever rude I promise you will be very certain that I have been."
I'm also concerned that one of your ongoing edits has been to try to add Akshay Agrawal to Wikipedia (mostly recently via AfC), to the point where one editor specifically asked you to stop until you had better sourcing. This is along with the fact that you deliberately lied about the other account being a sockpuppet and you were only honest after you were specifically and repeatedly told that an unblock wouldn't even become a minute possibility until you admitted to sockpuppetry. I'll be honest - that reflects extremely poorly on you as an editor, especially since at no point have you actually tried to explain why you were creating new accounts rather than trying to seek an unblock via this main account.
The main issue I'm getting at here is that I find it difficult to believe that your promises of trying to edit within policy and your acknowlegement of past wrongdoings is genuine. We need to be able to believe that you will not engage in or lie about future poor behavior in the future. So far you've done very little to really assuage these concerns and your other edits aren't enough to overcome this - especially since again, you deliberately lied to multiple admins when directly questioned about the sockpuppetry. I think that the best way to show that you are genuinely remorseful is to spend the next 6-12 months away from Wikipedia and then come back to seek an unblock. I cannot guarantee that you will get an unblock at that point in time, but it may make it more likely. I won't decline your unblock a second time in a row, but I will say that my recommendation is to decline the unblock request. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tokyogirl79: Despite my having found this editor, in their alternate(!) account, to have been frustrating to deal with, and despite my having had to be very direct with them to seek to prevent a behaviour that was becoming foolishly disruptive though ignorance rather than a perceived malice, I see no obstacle stemming from that behaviour to allowing their request. I am, however, perturbed that their interaction with me was stated to be "not what it looks like", for it was, with precision, exactly what it looks like. This would give me some cause for concern were I an admin and were I reviewing their request (which I could not because I would be involved). I would seek a clearer understanding, I think, of what they mean.
Having said that here, now, I also need to be clear. I am not going to get into a debate with this editor over the meanings of words. They must be clear to any putative unblocking admin rather than clear to me. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's part of what bothers me here as well. The editor has engaged in some problematic behavior but when they've been called out on said behavior, they try to deny that it was problematic until it becomes clear that the behavior was an issue and it's not going to be ignored. Even if the original behavior was done out of ignorance, the behavior afterwards (like right now) is very concerning because the after behavior seems to be quite deliberate. In other words, I'm not sure how much of their ignorance is real and how much is feigned and at what point it's all feigned. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tokyogirl79: I incline towards your view. The issue is that one will not know that the account will be operated well until it is. The editor needs to understand that there is unlikely to be any interest in allowing an appeal if unblocked now and relocked in the future. The second time will be final (0.99 probability). This is one where monitoring will be very much required if they are allowed to work here again, and they will need to adhere to the letter and spirit of all the rules here. I am not keen on people who dissemble when they try to explain away transgressions. I subscribe to the "Put your hand up, admit it, apologise and mean it, and undertake not to do it again" school of thought. Fiddle Faddle 11:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Timtrent: Therein lies the issue - I'm not sure how much of this is really genuine, considering that they repeatedly lied about their sockpuppetry until they realized that no one was being fooled. If they're willing to wait the six months then that'd go a long way to showing that they're genuine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: - Hey, what i meant was is that 'run-in' is a strong word. But as you rightly said, lets not get into the meaning of words. And @Tokyogirl79:, what im trying to tell you is, me staying away for 6-12 months wont help because whats the point in staying away? i mena all ive learnt about contributing to wiki is while contributing to wiki. The only mistake ive made from agrawal.akshay98 has been with templates with TimTrent and as pointed earlier i worked on it and learnt about it and got it right from then on. Honestly just keeping away people wont help, because what good is that. m gonna repeat the child and school analogy here. A child misbehaves, you warn/scold him and let him come to school the next day. But you dont ask him to skip the entire year, learn what he would otherwise learnt in school at home and then expect him to know everything..I get that youre saying that you're not able to see a plan here. You're saying staying away is the solution, im saying getting back is the solution. If you unblock me soon, it will allow me to learn more in the next "6-12months" and id be better geared than if i join back in that amount of time. I wont submit AKshay Agrawal article till I have solidly reffed it and run it past you and any other admins/users you ask me to run it by. Im gonna repeat it, the only mistake ive made was with templates and ive fixed that. asking me to stay away for 6 - 12 months is a little too much punishment/penalty/damage. Anonymousbananas (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My basic point is this: the wait would show that you are genuinely interested in editing in a beneficial manner. You say that you've made mostly good edits under your newest account, but the edits weren't so great that they would completely overcome your past issues, one of which is the repeated attempts to create an article with a lot of issues. What's most concerning here and quite possibly one of the biggest reasons that I would say that the wait is necessary is that you repeatedly and deliberately lied to at least four administrators about your sockpuppetry - despite them repeatedly stating that there was concrete evidence that you were lying. If you were genuinely interested in moving beyond your past behaviors you wouldn't have lied, especially after being repeatedly shown that there was extremely strong proof that you were lying. This is probably the worst thing you could have done because from that point on we have to question how much of your mistakes were from actual, unintentional errors and how much were from a deliberate disregard for the rules. In doing that you've essentially destroyed your trustworthiness.
What this means to myself and likely to the other admins (OhNoitsJamie, Ponyo, Vanjagenije, Yamaguchi先生) is that we cannot trust your current words and you need to do something to show us that you're actually willing to play by the rules in the future. One of the best and easiest ways to do this is to take the standard offer, which is that you wait 6-12 months before requesting a new unblock. This would be a huge show of good faith on your part and it's actually more than a lot of sockpuppeteers get in situations like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone else chooses to unblock you that will be their choice, but my decision here is pretty set - I'm not going to unblock you because again, I can't really trust that you mean what you say, given that you repeatedly lied about sockpuppetry less than 24 hours ago and only confessed because you were pretty much forced to at that point. Basically, I can't trust that you're actually going to learn and follow policy when you were essentially still committing sockpuppetry within the last two days, since you were in essential pretending to be another, unrelated person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, @OhNoitsJamie:, @Ponyo:, @Vanjagenije:, @Yamaguchi先生: and @Tokyogirl79:. Im sorry I lied. I lied because the stakes were too high. The stakes included getting my account blocked, which was meant to be a fresh start. Agrawal.akshay98 was meant to be a fresh start because Anonymousbananas was pretty botched up with bad edits. I'm not a vandal. Please stop treating me like one. Beyond a point, sincerely apologizing kind of hurts. Because Tokyogirl keeps repeating 'you cant be trusted' like I am a vandal. All I did was seek a fresh start with a new account because the previous one was blocked and there was no hope because I knew I had messed up. I thought new account, new me, new world, new opportunities. 6 months is a little too impractical. I never said my eidts were great; but theyve been constructive if nothing else. Tokyogirl, what you're expecting is perfectionism. You're throwing me out without telling me how to do it right this time. Thats neither fair, nor done. Have you NEVER made a mistake? Tokyogirl, please respond with alternates and with something that we can work out and not with 'You cannot be trusted'. Youve made your point. It hurts beyond a point. Im not a vandal. My intent was to help and to get a fresh start. A mans ego is something. Apologizing repeatedly is hurtful. If I didnt really feel sorry, i wouldnt have apologized repeatedly. I am literally offering help here. All i am asking is for you to ease out my block. Monitor me. Adopt me. Teach me. If I didnt mean what I am saying, I would have already created a new account to evade this block. This is a fact, not a threat. And though you say Youre not too sure of how much of this is genuine, youre not giving me a viable alternate either. I am asking for an alternate other than waiting for six months. Would it help if I mantain a section on my user page --> Say no to Sockpuppetry on the lines of Say no to Drugs (ill even make it humorous) and list out my heinous crimes there? How about this, Ive been active for about 4 months right ? Block me for a month. Thats a straight off 25% penalty.

Anonymousbananas (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about this --> Template:2nd chance? I'd say thats reasonable, fair and punitive enough :). Anonymousbananas (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologising does not hurt. Apologising and meaning it is simple, cathartic and required. Apologising saying how much it hurts you to apologise shows me that you care about yourself far more than you care about the way others perceive you, and are playing the "poor me" card, a card which always fails. Others will judge whether you should be unblocked at all. If it happens you need to understand that you will be very much on probation.
No-one needs to edit here. Most of the world's population don't even realise they can. The block, like all blocks, is to prevent abuse. Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the poor me card and im still not hearing a solution or a reply to my question here. Monitored = Probation which is what I said and agreed to a while ago. I am okay with being monitored. How about Template:2nd chance and/or in my edit summaries I will add something like "If you find this edit in bad taste/etc pl report me to user:Tokyogirl97. If required, ill redirect my user page to one of the admins so that they can monitor my activities and talk-page activities. I will essentially create my talk page on a subpage of their page if thats possible. There is no way words can convey how much i really feel sorry. You keep saying you're not convinced im sorry but you're not showing me how to either.I get it thats what youre saying; words arent enough. Let me show you by deeds.Anonymousbananas (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WHoa whoa whoa @Vanjagenije:, I understand the investigation under question, but you just undid/deleted EVERYTHING (articles/templates/talk/todo) I added to/edited/created. [[Rohan Dasgupta was not created by me. It is someone elses article. Institutes of technology act is a pefectly reffed article. i understand my account is under suspision but those articles should be judged based on the merits of the articles and not me myself O.o. Anonymousbananas (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Rohan Dasgupta is not deleted. Articles created by blocked editors in violation of the block should be deleted regardless of whether they are referenced or not (see: WP:G5). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what about Vjmpatil and Rollingbananas. Was that also you? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rollingbananas and any of its socks and socks of account mentioned above, yes that was me. Vjmpatil was not me. Whats the decision on the 2nd chance or enough rope or unblock ? Anonymousbananas (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your option is WP:Standard Offer, as I clearly noted in my unblock request decline.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: I see a quantity of economy of deployment of the truth in providing the list of sock puppets that the editor promised. I also see a choice to ignore the options offered and to drive towards their chosen solution. Since more sock puppets are disclosed as time passes I would wish for the complete list as a part of the application for the standard offer, and I would expect any lack of disclosure in this application to be an immediate failure. I would not support a second application for a second chance. I'm running out of charity. Fiddle Faddle 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would see how any good faith that was initially extended may drying up. We'll see how it all pans out in 6+ months should Anonymousbananas go the standard offer route.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo, Vanjagenije, OhNoitsJamie, Tokyogirl79, and Yamaguchi先生: I have examined this editor's lack of adherence to the truth in the various sock puppets and in this account. I have changed my mind on offering the standard offer and withdraw my support for it precisely because of that behaviour, coupled with the fact that the list of sock puppets has had to be teased out of them. I see no contrition save that for being caught out in dishonest statements. Others may disagree, but I see this project as better with their not contributing to it. Fiddle Faddle 12:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to agree to this - they've been given the standard offer and their reaction was to continue to try to act as if they were the injured party in all of this. It's possible that they could improve enough 6-12 months down the line to where they could contribute maturely, but so far I have to admit that I doubt that they will ever be able to fully take responsibility for their actions and edit maturely. They're only contrite because they believe that this is what we want to hear. While we do want to hear him acknowledge what he did wrong, this is meaningless if none of it is genuine and is only an act put forth. Unless they make one heck of a case when they return, I seriously doubt that they will be unblocked and I would encourage the reviewing admin at that point in time to give serious weight to Tim/FiddleFaddle's comments above, given that he initially gave them a strong benefit of the doubt, only for the editor's actions to cause him to change his mind. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, Ill take the standard offer. Anonymousbananas (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I need to make sure that the standard offer is only that you wait 6-12 months and then ask for an unblock at that point in time. It does not guarantee an unblock and to be honest, it's extremely unlikely that you will be unblocked unless you make a very strong, genuine case, as you not only have to show that you understand the various reasons you were blocked, but also why your post-blocking actions caused so much concerns in the above comments. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To take the standard offer it has first to be offered to you. To have it offered you need to request an unblock and make the strong and genuine case that it should be offered because you admit your prior failings unreservedly, you apologise for them and the apology is seen to be genuine, you are decent and 100% truthful, and your contrition is believed. This is one arrow, one shot stuff.
So gather your thoughts, consider the case you need to make, understand that you have only one go at it, and, when you are ready and when the relevant time has elapsed, make your request.
The fact that I am giving you this advice does not mean that I am in favour of awarding you the offer. It is simply impartial advice. It is up to you to convince a random admin who picks up your future unblock request that the offer should be made and that you will accept it and abide by it. They will consider your past behaviour as well as your future promises. See Tokyogirl79's advice above
This is Last Chance Saloon. One arrow, one shot. So consider it well.
If awarded it you need to behave better than well. Fiddle Faddle 18:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Schools in Gurgaon

[edit]

Hello, Anonymousbananas. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, List of Schools in Gurgaon, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. --Anarchyte 04:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Schools in Rohtak

[edit]

Hello, Anonymousbananas. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, List of Schools in Rohtak, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. --Anarchyte 04:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Nomination of Akshay Agrawal for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Akshay Agrawal 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/Akshay Agrawal (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymousbananas&oldid=1079560911"