User talk:Jenos450

Welcome to my talk Page

This user is a participant in
WikiProject India.

Please let me know if you wanna talk Jenos450 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenos450, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jenos450! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello Jenos450, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Persecution of Hindus have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On investigation, I find that the source for the copied text in Persecution of Hindus was published in 1893 and was therefore in the public domain. So this was a case of plagiarism rather than a copyright violation. When copying compatibly licensed material, attribution is required as explained on this page. I have reinstated the text and added attribution at the end of the reference section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you sire for your help. I will make sure I dont repeat this again. Jenos450 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Jenos450, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to N. S. Rajaram does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's unfair to use Hindutva as a word to acknowledge people who follow their religion, plus there were no other source which could say the same about him. Thanks for your help nonetheless! I will make sure I abide by the rules! Jenos450 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Jenos450 (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raj era sources

Hi Jenos450. I removed your addition to the Persecution of Hindus article because your content is cited to a source from the Raj era. The consensus on Wikipedia is not to use Raj era sources. Also, do note that historical content anywhere on Wikipedia is best cited to modern scholarly sources (because they are peer reviewed) rather than to older sources. Feel free to readd your content if you find recent scholarly sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where it is written that Raj-era cannot be used, seeing that the author of the book himself cited sources after every chapter it should be very much acceptable. The Book is written 100 years ago is known as secondary sources. The authors were not involved in the event, so they have the emotional distance that allows them to analyze the events dispassionately. Citing old books are allowed everywhere. Awaiting response Jenos450 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where it is but perhaps @Kautilya3: of @Doug Weller: can point you to the consensus. Regardless, it should be fairly obvious that something written a hundred years ago would be elaborated on by modern secondary sources if it were meaningful. Historical research doesn't stop the moment someone writes something. All this given that we're not even considering whether the author of the text you cite was a historian or just another British administrator, in which case it wouldn't satisfy WP:HISTRS. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ has some discussion on this, and includes some links to prior discussions on WP:RSN and the India project talk page for various sources. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my answer, I am ready to justify my edit. Most of the information that is present in the Public Library of India is open source. Thus, Wikipedia allows Open source and secondary information to be considered. Now coming to the author, Mountstuart Elphinstone was a Scottish statesman and historian, associated with the government of British India. Not just another Administrator. He was a historian who in his book cited sources at the end of each chapter. Now coming to the content,

1. Ban on Hindu festival - Like you said other scholars must have citied it, well yes, they did. It's all out there just not open-source and only available as hard copies. Some of the examples are-

Proceedings of the Indian History Congress Vol. 28 (1966), pp. 211-217 (7 pages) Published by Indian History Congress mentions it here. and see this here
In 1665, he banned the public and private celebrations of Holi and Deepavali/Diwali throughout the Mughal Empire (source)
John Richards, a former history professor at Duke University, attributed this behavior of Aurangzeb’s to his zeal to introduce strict Sharia in his empire (SOURCE)

2. The same goes for Jiyaz tax and its implications.

Thereby, it is written nowhere that a Raj historian's book can't be used as a source. There are hundreds of articles that use Books written by British historians as a source. Moreover, it would be obvious that colonial historians don't have to be biased about Mughal History. If one goes through his book, he could easily tell the neutral standpoint that it is written on and clearly meant to show facts, otherwise, this historian would not write cite at the end of every chapter. I do think this topic is sensitive and I don't want to rush to make edits, regardless of it, I did my best and took care of attributes and non-plagiarism. It would be appreciated if you could reconsider your action of reverting my edit. Thanks! Jenos450 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HISTRH asks us to use recent historical scholarship. Elphinstone is not such. Audrey Truschke writes:

Many modern people view Aurangzeb’s orders to harm specific temples as symptomatic of a larger vendetta against Hindus. Such views have roots in colonial-era scholarship, where positing timeless Hindu-Muslim animosity embodied the British strategy of divide and conquer.

So, you can't cite that very colonial-era scholarship that is being criticised. Please find recent sources if you want this to fly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why are you citing her? Audrey is notorious for her whitewashing of the record of Aurangzeb and other Mughal rulers.

WP:HISTRW clearly states in its 5th point that "Earlier scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic", Elphinstone was as much as a historian as Audrey Truschke, he did publish books and so is his Wikipedia page calls him a Historian. I don't see why we should not cite him instead! Jenos450 (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says "consult these in order". What is the 1st entry? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Must have missed my eyes, apologies for that. You see the source that I mentioned is a revised version released by the University of Toronto and cited by E.B. Cowell, its not like its ignored totally. If you're gonna imply that Raj-era books are not valid then any source before 1947 shouldn't be allowed here on Wikipedia. All the documents are Raj-era, right? Wikipedia clearly mentions the use of the public domain with proper attribution which I did.

Secondly, The essay at the last also implies that it doesn't mean it's inappropriate or insufficient. Moreover, my source is a historical scholarship and was revised by the University of Toronto and EB Cowells.

Third, From Jallianwala Bagh to Indian Rebellion of 1857, all of them mention text that has been sourced from Raj-era Books which is available on archive.org. Elphinstone is as much of a historian as any other out there.

Please consider reverting my edit as it follows all the rules. Jenos450 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not go off on tangents. Or I will end up having to spend my whole life here.

Revised by University of Toronto doesn't make it contemporary, as long as the author is listed as the long-dead Governor General of India. We know nothing about his scholarly credentials. He is best known as an administrator.

You are fully aware of recent historial sources on the topic. So I suggest you use them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your main argument was Raj-era books couldn't be used. My question to you was simple, where do we draw the line? plenty of articles out there has used Raj-era books. Using Raj era books is not prohibited, so why do this? Young editors like me should not be wikibullied. Let me make it clear that he first came to India as a historian and opened several education institutes. His Wikipedia page signifies him as a historian, it must be relevant right?

Second, WP:HISTRS in a nutshell, writes "Historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible." this is a historical scholarship. WP:HISTRH states that weight should be put by reading the review, it is cited by the University of Toronto and EB Cowells. So it meets that criteria too. You cant cite Audrey, she is not a reliable historian and has been involved in controversies regarding whitewashing history. Thank you. Jenos450 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books written in the past are often revised and reissued because they become a part of history but they still need to be reinterpreted according to modern historiography. The study of history is not static. I looked up Audrey Truschke and she is a professor of history at Rutgers and is therefore a reliable source. Elphinstone is not. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, This is among the first scholarly studies of India from a yet unbiased European mind. Of course, it was revised and republished in 2011 by Noble Publishers. In fact, let me tell you, it got reissued in 1905, 1911,1916, 1996, 2011. Next, it is widely used as a source. Empire and Nation By Partha Chatterjee - 2010 acknowledged it in her source.

Nehru library hugely borrowed from Elphinstone while writing Discovery of India, in fact, Gandhi occasionally referred to his interpretation. writes Identity and Religion - Amalendu Misra who consider it one of the best interpretation out there, better than Mill. The book has been widely used and Critics has referred to his work as the best standard for half the century There are many other historians who cite Elphinstone like I just showed you. It was just not another book. Elphistone is dead. Imagine his influence to be so great that even Nehru Library and Gandhi cited from him. Nobody cites Audrey and her whitewashing work. I hope you have changed your mind about reverting my edit. Thanks! Jenos450 (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for not using Raj era sources is here. Just don't use them. Bishonen | tålk 19:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

How is that a consensus? Most of the people commenting doesnt even know what they are talking about. Elphinstone cited primary sources in his book more than anything else. Although, I am not denying that some british writers might be fueled by political propoganda but there were good unbaised writers too. Wikipedia lack information about them, infact, it lack so much about historical figures. People dont even try to read about them or to write about them here, if they do, edits are reverted by these editors who doesnt have an expertise in the subject, all they see is Islamophoia or Hinduphia while denying the brutal hisotry. Nonetheless, These good wrirters are recognised by their contribution to later historical books. I will try to justify Elphinstone here.

Your friends talk about the authors did not know the language, but you see, Elphinstone books took instance and very much based on the work of Philologist William jones who is consider the greatest in the feild of languages in India. Unlike current day historic authors who likes to write book sitting in a cafe in delhi, these people took much effort in feild. Elphinstone himself used primary sources after getting it translated.

Can't comment on that, this is a history scholarship. Cited by big figures like Gandhi themselves and later used in modern schools.

Again, this is a unbiased scholarship and just stating facts with citations.

Well, I think that is somewhat true but this doesnt apply to the work of people like Elphinstone who had nothing to gain from it. This British official in India who did much to promote popular education and local administration of laws. Talking about social factors, Elphinstone promoted education to the lowest part of the society as well as brought local subjects to the institutes while denying the anglo study which your friend is citing here.

Its very much relevent to use it. Seeking reverting of the edit. Jenos450 (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken in believing that your personal opinion trumps a consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and other discussions as linked at WP:RAJ (which you have already been given a link to). I've been following your edits to Persecution of Hindus and your discussion on Kautilya3's talkpage, where, despite being a new user (or I suppose you are a new user), you seem to be sure that you already know better about Wikipedia's practices than an experienced user like Kautilya3. Kautilya has taken a surprising amount of time and patience trying to help you understand the editing principles here, but you seem quite unwilling to learn. It appears that you're here to push an agenda rather than help build a neutral encyclopedia. You were reverted because you did not use reliable sources, that's the long and short of it. And here you are doubling down on refusing to do so. Unless you show more willingness to listen and learn, you will soon be topic banned from Indian subjects. That means you will not be allowed to contribute to them. Bishonen | tålk 05:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wow, you're Threatening me, what agenda are you talking about? Read my edit, it was as neutral as it gets. I was curious, Where do we draw the line of not using the raj era? I am willing to listen.

I never said I know better than Kautilya3, all due credit and respect to the kind sire. What angers me is that editors should do a quick google search about the background check of people before reverting. Elphinstone was just not another Britisher. Not all Raj-era sources are unreliable and it's not good to generalize :) Jenos450 (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to indent correctly for ease of reading. You say you're willing to listen, but I can't say it looks like it. RegentsPark (an administrator) and Kautilya have both told you several times that we draw the line of not using Raj era sources at don't use ethnographers of the Raj era, and they have explained why. I won't tell you the reasons again, since it seems to be a waste of pixels. As for not good to generalize, all our policies and guidelines are generalizations — I don't understand how else they would work for a large, diverse, community of editors. Bishonen | tålk 13:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Okay thanks for ur support Jenos450 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jenos450! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Govt. Source?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Shivaji does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks, that would be my mistake. I forgot and later realised that. I have alerted the previous editor on their talk page why I reverted the edit. Jenos450 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

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

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

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

Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Indian Digital Media Association (October 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hatchens was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Indian Digital Media Association and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Indian Digital Media Association, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hatchens (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Love Jihad, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 08:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenos450! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Love Jihad that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Prabhat Patnaik. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE Notification

I have initiated a discussion about your recent edits at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. The thread may be found here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vijayasinhrao Fatehsinhrao (November 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was:

All of the content appears to be sourced from unreliable genealogy sites. We don't want to propagate unreliable information. Please trim down the draft or add some reliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vijayasinhrao Fatehsinhrao and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vijayasinhrao Fatehsinhrao, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from all ~~Indian subjects~~ subjects connected with India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan on all pages. (Changed 22:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC).)

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 18:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Indian Digital Media Association

Hello, Jenos450. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Indian Digital Media Association, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Vijayasinhrao Fatehsinhrao

Hello, Jenos450. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vijayasinhrao Fatehsinhrao, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Indian Digital Media Association

Hello, Jenos450. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Indian Digital Media Association".

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. 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!} 16:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Vijayasinhrao Fatehsinhrao

Hello, Jenos450. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vijayasinhrao Fatehsinhrao".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jenos450. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]