Welcome!

Hello, Dashing boy31, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Kapil singh sankhala

How do you know about "Kapil Singh Sankhala"? What are IAS, RAS, DANICS? Gazpacho 10:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Green India Initiative

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Green India Initiative, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? CultureDrone (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of R. H. Sankhala

A tag has been placed on R. H. Sankhala requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Shyamsunder (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:DrRHSankhala.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:DrRHSankhala.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ankit Singh Gehlot

A tag has been placed on Ankit Singh Gehlot, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. trakesht (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:RHSankhala.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:RHSankhala.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. [midnight comet] [talk] 11:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Indiadomains.org"

A page you created, Indiadomains.org, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a website, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for websites in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sankhalajodhpur.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Sankhalajodhpur.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Slon02 (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kapil singh sankhala

A tag has been placed on Kapil singh sankhala 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 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of R. H. Sankhala for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article R. H. Sankhala, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. H. Sankhala until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dashing boy31, and you are therefore blocked indefinitely.
If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Dashing boy31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Administrators, I am writing this in order to say that I created the account due to the reason that I wanted to give my reason on why should my account not be deleted. But instead of hearing the administrator ordered to block that username too. You can still wonder that if a person discloses his identification then will any sockpuppet do it. It was just a simple try to explain my claim and the administrator did not care to even read the reason given and launched the sockpuppet case against me. And, regarding the editing and making of my grandfather's article, it was not a memorial for him. He was a real scientist. I still have research papers of him which were of much useful importance. And, the people from Jodhpur still know him as a very kind and respectable Proffessor. And, why the hell i would do sockpuppetry.After the launch of sockpuppetry case against me and the blocking of my account. I was not able to use my account till today, when I came to a public-computer as you people also blocked my IP address of my home computer. Kindly unblock my account and then I will be in position to provide more suitable reasons, if these are not sufficient to you. I want to add some more valid and powerful resources to my grand-father's article in incubator. Kindly unblock my account. Thanks. Dashing boy31 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You state that you have not done sockpuppetry, but you also say that this is not your only account. It seems that you do not understand Wikipedia's sue of the word 'sockpuppet.' It also seems that you do not understand Wikipedia's notability criteria, which are the criteria being used to decide whether this article will be kept or deleted- the fact that a professor has written research papers, or is fondly remembered by his students, is not relevant to that discussion. Since you don't understand the rules yet, it wouldn't be appropriate to unblock you- you wouldn't be able to prevent yourself from breaking them again. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (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.

Reviewing admin - please note AnkitSGehlot (talk · contribs), another account created by this user today. TN X Man 20:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review and your decline to the request. Now, this is to state that now I am not interested to get my account unblocked. You people go as you like. I made a unblock request in a good faith and you people tried to blame me for everything. Thanks, now you people won't see me online particularly. Sockpuppetry charges on me were wrong to that extent because I have seen that when you people go against a topic, you will delete the topic even if its of considerable importance. In that case, a supporting evidence link from Pubmed was also added but you people thought to delete it then also. And, now in this condition I am now not ready to continue with it here. I used one or more accounts(which in your words means sockpuppetry), but this was done when you people were not trying to hear what I said. Even everyone can think i contributed some extremely important topic articles from them. All administrators are told to refer to the contributions made by me through those accounts which I created. And, deletion of the article on ground that it was created by a person who did sockpuppetry is fully against any law. If my grandfather was not notable how can his article be listed at pubmed. I have much evidences to show you people up. But, you people do as you like. Thanks Dashing boy31 (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that, in your anger, you were unwilling or unable to read the rules about multiple accounts and the notability criteria. However, there is nothing I can do to make you read the rules, and it would not be right to unblock a person who chooses not to learn the rules or follow them. An article written by this person doesn't have anything to do with the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir/Madam, I admit that I did this mistake but is it possible that I can re-gain the belief of the community by my hard work and efforts towards the improvement of the encyclopedia?? You can read the contribs of my accounts which I created. Really, I did great hard work in compiling those. If provided with an opportunity to re-serve the encyclopedia. I have taken print-outs of rules of wikipedia and agree to abide by them. Kindly unblock my account on this basis. I will be very much grateful if you do that. I have some really notable topics for which I can write articles. You can have a "watch" on my account if you want. Please consider this request. I will show you the quality articles I have written. For instance, You can see the contribs of user:UnbeatableIndia2020 and more. you will come to know.Please provide me a last chance to serve this encyclopedia again. Thanks Dashing boy31 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet accounts are never unblocked. If you can explain how you would edit differently in the future, you should request the unblocking of your first account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. I would edit differently in the future as per the rules and policies of Wikipedia. It would include unbiased writing, backed with powerful references,etc. They would not contain any word or phrase or sentence that could harm any person/organization's reputation,etc. In addition, the articles would include the importance of writing that article and how notable the topic of the article is? I don't want sockpuppet accounts to be unblocked, just the main account .i.e. Dashing boy31. Thanks in advance for the reason you gave me one last chance. Dashing boy31 (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. I would edit differently in the future as per the rules and policies of Wikipedia. It would include unbiased writing, backed with powerful references,etc. They would not contain any word or phrase or sentence that could harm any person/organization's reputation,etc. In addition, the articles would include the importance of writing that article and how notable the topic of the article is? I don't want sockpuppet accounts to be unblocked, just the main account .i.e. Dashing boy31. Thanks in advance for the reason you gave me one last chance. Dashing boy31 (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Dashing boy31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thanks for the prompt reply. I would edit differently in the future as per the rules and policies of Wikipedia. It would include unbiased writing, backed with powerful references,etc. They would not contain any word or phrase or sentence that could harm any person/organization's reputation,etc. In addition, the articles would include the importance of writing that article and how notable the topic of the article is? I don't want sockpuppet accounts to be unblocked, just the main account .i.e. Dashing boy31. Thanks in advance for the reason you gave me one last chance.Dashing boy31 (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Duplicate request, see below. -- Selket ^Talk 00:20, 3 April 2011 (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.

Please read WP:Sockpuppet. The main account is especially supposed to be blocked. You should only have one account too. I am not an admin ~~Awesome EBE123 ^talk_Contribs 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Dashing boy31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Respected Administrators, I have explained how I could make it if you people unblock me. You can check contribs and u can make a conclusion, that I wrote quality articles. The sockpuppetry case may be closed-down if the user agrees to follow ethics. And, if you people do not respond to unblock-requests then those people will re-do it. I am a legal person and I think you people should unblock me and watch my quality articles. Thanks in advance. Dashing boy31 (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click the Edit tab at the top of that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Please note, if you are unblocked as a result of this second chance, only one account will be unblocked. --Selket ^Talk 00:21, 3 April 2011 (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.

{{helpme}}|I am not able to even edit any page. No edit button appear at any article. Kindly unblock me from editing. Dashing boy31 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the {{Admin help}} template, so that you can be sure your help request gets someone with the power to unblock you. (not weighing in on whether one will)Monty ₈₄₅ 02:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the previous unblock request / rejection: you're blocked, and need to address the specific concerns if you wish to be unblocked - at which point, you could use another {{unblock}} to clearly explain why the issues leading to your block are no longer of concern. If you read the above notice carefully, it explains how you can do that - by copying part of some article here, to your user talk page, and showing us good edits. You cannot edit other pages, but you can copy/paste their content. Chzz ► 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tab now says "view source" rather than "edit" because you are blocked. Click the one that says view source, and copy/paste the text in the grayed out edit box here. Then you can improve your copy on this page. --Selket ^Talk 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Dashing boy31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to request an unblock of my main account, so that I wish to contribute to the Wikipedia foundation with new articles on relevant notable topics. Kindly unblock me.Please give me one last chance. Dashing boy31 (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per my note below - no response in 3 days (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 16 April 2012 (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.

None of the below either follow the directions you were provided, nor are they considered to be "significant" changes to an article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dashing boy31

Kapil singh sankhala

Proposed deletion of Green India Initiative

Notability of R. H. Sankhala

Image copyright problem with File:DrRHSankhala.JPG

Speedy deletion nomination of Ankit Singh Gehlot

File copyright problem with File:RHSankhala.jpg

Speedy deletion of "Indiadomains.org"

File:Sankhalajodhpur.jpg missing description details

Speedy deletion nomination of Kapil singh sankhala

Nomination of R. H. Sankhala for deletion

Blocked

Suggested Edits to articles

Additions of references to unreferenced article: Rohit Bal

Additions of references to unreferenced article: Dimple Jhangiani

Unblock me!

Proposed deletion of File:Kapilji class123.jpg