Hello! RAJIVVASUDEV, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Performance fabrics has been accepted

Performance fabrics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAJIVVASUDEV, I spent a good amount of time trying to clean up the article and add sources. I also spent a decent amount of time debating with myself over whether to accept the submission or decline it. In the end, I decided the encyclopedia could be improved if I chose to accept, but I also decided to add a {{refimprove}} maintenance tag to the new article. Currently it has a lot of unsourced content, which is highly undesirable because as an encyclopedia our content should be verifiable. As a result, I strongly encourage you to continue to improve the article by adding sources—not general sources that just mention the subject, but sources which go in and actually verify or show to readers that the content you wrote in the article is true. I also wanted to let you know that I moved a bunch of sources you added to the article's talk page, because I wasn't sure where they belonged. If you need help, feel free to contact me on my talk page or ask a question at the Teahouse. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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

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

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

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Performance fabrics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly changing your user name

@RAJIVVASUDEV: User account "Rajiv Vasudev" is not registered. If you wish to use "Rajiv Vasudev" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. Otherwise this page will be deleted. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What is your connection with Themessengerofknowledge? I strongly suggest you stop playing around in each other's user space and focus on building an encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Close-knit conductor.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Close-knit conductor.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RAJIVVASUDEV. 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]

Rajiv Sharma (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Sensors for fabricsRajiv Sharma (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Rajiv Sharma (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Dear Sir, please check if this page will be useful for textiles( industry people). need advice to check initial page. regards Rajiv11:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Rajiv Sharma (talk)[reply]

Comment on Talk:Textile

Hi Rajiv Vasudev, I saw that you placed a comment at the top of talk:Textile. Did you perhaps mean for this comment to be placed at the bottom under the merge discussion? If so, please move it down so that everyone can see it. Currently it is in a section that was added over 10 years ago. Leschnei (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, RAJIVVASUDEV. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Leschnei (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dyeing

Rajiv Vasudev, I can see that you are enthusiastic about editing Wikipedia which is terrific, however, I think that you need to pause and spend a little time learning about how to edit properly. Here are some specific steps for you to take. And please don't be discouraged, this is a learning curve that every editor goes through.

Please read the links above to learn general editing.
When you add a comment to any talk page, put it at the bottom of the page. If you keep putting comments at the top, no one will see them!
Don't change things like hatnotes without learning about their use first. The inclusion of Dying in the hatnote for Dyeing is to help guide readers who have landed on the wrong page. And proper formatting is important so that you don't 'break' the hatnote.
Wikilinks should go in brackets [[]] not <ref> markers, so [[Color fastness]] not ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_fastness</ref> .
English grammar is important, including proper punctuation and word use. Perhaps starting your edits in a word processor would be helpful.

I have reverted your edits to Dyeing and put some of your text back in with proper formatting. Please ask if you have further questions. Leschnei (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the 'cleanup' tag refers to the entire article and not just the lead paragraphs. Leschnei (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved 'Selection of dyes' under 'Methods'. I think that it fits in better there. Leschnei (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Innovations in textiles (August 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.livemint.com/AI/tdxtlGYRklB16h8rWj7A2H/How-Artificial-Intelligence-is-empowering-designers-in-India.html, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/11/industry-4-0-the-smart-factory-and-machines-as-a-service/#379f152e1dff, https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelarthur/2018/01/15/ai-ibm-tommy-hilfiger/#1defab2f78ac. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

User:RAJIVVASUDEV/Innovations in textiles may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined submission of Innovations in Textiles

I appreciate the observations and declined decision but curious to know about the possibility of continuing for chasing the same or I should concentrate on something else. In my opinion it will be useful for Textile community and fashion industry to cope up with the latest innovations and wikipedia should not be behind by others for the sake of the information,it becomes more important for the wiki project of wiki fashion. Lots of innovations in textiles are happening and accessibility is not sufficient.Through wikipedia we can make the things more visible to large user base.

Kindly advise Regards rajivvasudev@outlook.com RAJIVVASUDEV Rajiv Sharma (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Performance fabrics

I'm a little bit worried that your latest addition (the table) is not supported by sources, and more importantly that the subject itself is unencyclopeadic.

What is the difference between a so-called "performance Fabric" and a fabric?

I don't want you to spend lots of time and effort on this, and then have me come along and remove your hard work as unsourced or unencyclopeadic. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Roxy the dog's Talk page) Hi Roxy, appreciate your observations.i have added the required references to the chart, The basic difference between Fabric and Performance fabric is performance.which is enhanced in these fabrics. Don't hesitate to ask me again ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

So exactly what performance do you mean? ... and enhanced from what state? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources of that table support your claim that those fabrics are "performance fabrics." Have you got any sources related to "performance fabrics"? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
376	Spinning (textiles) (talk)	Add sources
1,347	Jute (talk)	Add sources
70	Blouson (talk)	Add sources
232	Western dress codes (talk)	Add sources
40	Ceremonial dress (talk)	Add sources
46	Rekel (talk)	Add sources
69	Textile recycling (talk)	Cleanup
78	Home fuel cell (talk)	Cleanup
81	Layered clothing (talk)	Cleanup
196	Olefin fiber (talk)	Expand
214	Madras (cloth) (talk)	Expand
324	Textile printing (talk)	Expand
72	Digital textile printing (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
264	Bamboo textile (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
28	Riding coat (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,813	Rayon (talk)	Merge
87	Bekishe (talk)	Merge
552	Clothing material (talk)	Merge
198	Tailcoat (talk)	Wikify
77	3D optical data storage (talk)	Wikify
131	Resistive random-access memory (talk)	Wikify
17	Game of Thrones Tapestry (talk)	Orphan
6	International Down and Feather Testing Laboratory (talk)	Orphan
2	Joanna Berzowska (talk)	Orphan
90	Norfolk jacket (talk)	Stub
27	Polo coat (talk)	Stub
23	Vegetable flannel (talk)	Stub
38	Coatee (talk)	Stub
140	Lamé (fabric) (talk)	Stub
95	Coolmax (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC) SuggestBot Hi there i appreciate your kind words and thankful to the wiki family who are sincerely doing hard and honest efforts for our next generations .I am always there for my contributions.Sincere thanks and regards to the Wikipedia family Rajiv Sharma[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Performance fabrics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sportswear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Functional clothing Draft

From your first reference -

"Functional clothing in fact has never really been systematically defined or classified,"

Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, the dog. barcus Hi ! but you can help me to define, the name Functional clothing have wider spectrum which is limited in Performance fabrics .ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Functional clothing (August 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://clothingindustry.blogspot.com/2017/12/functional-clothing.html. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Functional clothing may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Waggie (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The contents were removed immediately after the observations came in notice, kindly review and advise further.Thanks and regards. Rajiv Sharma (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ZDHC (August 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The references do not appear to be independent. This draft consists entirely of what the foundation says about itself, not what others have written about the foundation. Notability is based on what others have written.

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:ZDHC 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:ZDHC, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant refs.are added.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Themessengerofknowledge. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text

{{unblock|Greetings from my side. Sir,
Acceptance of mistake: My  mistake I got a vote and support from my family.
Vandalism may be unnoticed/ undetected : I was helped (3 years back) in editing and creating that page  by Themessengerofknowledge  unintentionally and considering  Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, . It should be acceptable to Wikipedia especially when editors from the world can help and correct each other
Need to check it is very important to understand the case: Is there any similarity of editing in quality of editing , pages he edited except one page Performance fabrics .He is much more senior user than me and his interests are quite different. I put him in trouble also.

Wrong doing at my part: I misused my rights and disobeyed the policy and asked him to vote (knowingly) in my favour but it was to defend a well deserving page
Undertaking not to do things again: I will abide with the policies and the things will never be repeated.
Reason why I did wrong: But please do not ignore in what circumstances the other account came in picture.
when validity was challenged of a page which was published and accepted three years back .
I tried to improve the page with my capacity and other senior editors also helped but edits were deleted more promptly and instantly. I realised that i am bullied, i was discouraged and distracted and lost my focus especially when the page was nominated  for deletion.

This was my first and last mistake otherwise i always contributed and tried to improve the articles.
Improvement: i will ask permission to assist any senior editor and will contribute more productively without putting myself in trouble.
I accept my mistake and seek apology. I respect the Wikipedia  community and believe in justice.
Kindly review the decision.
Thanks

Rajiv Sharma (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC) ~~~~}}

below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ZDHC (August 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has not been improved significantly since it was last declined. The major action since the last decline has been to reference-bomb the draft with additional low-quality sources. Author of this draft has been blocked for sockpuppetry.

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:ZDHC 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:ZDHC, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:ZDHC

Draft:ZDHC, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:ZDHC and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:ZDHC during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22491 was submitted on Aug 29, 2018 06:14:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22493 was submitted on Aug 29, 2018 09:57:36. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22502 was submitted on Aug 30, 2018 03:35:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for review the block

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).

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

Request reason:

1 @Bbb23: Sir, Greetings from my side ! * Acceptance of mistake: I got a vote and support from my family. I accept the same. * Vandalism may be unnoticed/ undetected : I was helped (3 years back) in editing and creating that page by Themessengerofknowledge unintentionally and considering Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, . It should be acceptable to Wikipedia especially when editors from the world can help and correct each other Need to check it is very important to understand the case: Is there any similarity of editing in quality of editing , pages he edited except one page Performance fabrics .He is much more senior user than me and his interests are quite different. I put him in trouble also. * Wrong doing at my part: I misused my rights and disobeyed the policy and asked him to vote (knowingly) in my favour but it was to defend a well deserving page * Undertaking not to do things again: I will abide with the policies and the things will never be repeated. * Reason why I did wrong: But please do not ignore in what circumstances the other account came in picture. when validity was challenged of a page which was published and accepted three years back . I tried to improve the page with my capacity and other senior editors also helped but edits were deleted more promptly and instantly. I realised that i am bullied, i was discouraged and distracted and lost my focus especially when the page was nominated for deletion. * Improvement and contributions: This was my first and last mistake otherwise i always contributed positively and tried to improve the articles. I will ask permission to assist any senior editor and will contribute more productively.I can contribute in hindi and Punjabi I accept my mistake and seek apology. I respect the Wikipedia community and believe in justice. Kindly review the decision. Thanks Rajiv Sharma (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2018-->

Decline reason:

The relationship between the two accounts is far, far closer than you imply here, and were clearly in violation of WP:SOCK. On that basis alone, I am declining your unblock request. If you honestly address this, you are welcome to make another unblock request. Yamla (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2018 (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.

Appeal.2 for review the block

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).

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

Request reason:

Reason Request 2 Dear concerned Admins, Greetings from my side! First of all, I appreciate the concern of the Admin and accept it, requesting for a review considering my below mentioned concerns in light of not blaming anyone. I am acknowledging the block with moral responsibility and pursuing here truthfully, transparently to you with few facts and circumstances (And reality of wrongly demonstrated evidences to hold me back and violation of WP:NOTBATTLE resulting a start class article is redirected to An unassessed article ) , I believe no one is bigger than the truth and policy and justice. I know two wrongs can not make one right. My inexperience caused me this block. #Acceptance and understanding the reason of my block : I violated a policy, got a vote and support from my family member which does not comply with WP:SOCK. I accept the same. It was not honest at my part and against the consensus. Clarifying the query by Mr. Yamla, the relationship with the other user- Sir, User:Themessengerofknowledge is my son and we live together under one roof only.The vote is used deliberately in desperation without knowing the consequences. Now on it is understood. #Vandalism may be remained unnoticed/ undetected :The other user helped me (3 years back also) in correcting my talk page, editing, submission of the draft of Performance fabrics , Simply for help considering Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is what the evidence 1sthere is made. In actual it was a warning (for talk page and user name editing) by the admin. Otherwise we would have been blocked at that time also. The warning was appreciated and well taken. We never abused and misused these accounts except editing and vote in Performance fabrics. Otherwise his interventions were absolutely absent in between( 7/11/2015 to 14/08/2018) History of our edits is self explanatory. #Wrong doing at my part: I misused my rights and disobeyed the policy and asked him to vote (knowingly) in my false dilemma in my favour, Yes of-course it was to defend a well deserving page, And I accept this was against the policy WP:SOCK. # Undertaking not to do things again: I will abide by the WP:PG and will never do wrong again.We will make it sure that both users will mind their own business and will not interfere in editing of each other. # Reason why I did wrong: I am not justifying but it is my duty to disclose, in what circumstances, the other account came in picture. When validity of a page was challenged for it's notability and called encyclopedic which was published and accepted three years back . I appreciated the suggestions and tried to improve the page with my capacity, sometimes cited and over cited even the things which were Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE , in desperation only. Moreover senior editors also helped but all edits were deleted more regularly and instantly. I was discouraged . then the page was nominated for deletion on 14/08/2018. I felt lost and I asked the other user to comment and vote. Although he voted to keep but his comments were like WP:TNT. The evidence 2nd diff in actual it was stated against WP:WIKILAWYER to oppose a wrong vote[1][2] which was suspected by us for WP:SOCK against the nominator when he was advocating a IP address and a user with (IP has only edited for 13 days and has already gotten 17 warnings for disruptive editng and a block) . And here I am.I am blocked, tagged with sock-puppet and lost the page too. Is it that bad to oppose and raise voice against uncivilly [3] of other senior editors even when you are right . And they are free to call anybody anything [4] [5]. I was insulted many times, what about WP:BB when one X individual is a nominator himself, lawyer (influencing others , forcing other users and can call them nonsense) and can be above/and against the judgement/consensus also[6] Is not showing violation of WP:CONDUCT. # I want to stay here because I respect the Wikipedia community, the contents and I learnt a lots of things from here. One point of view of the X person will not change my opinion towards this great community. I am embarrassed with what I did , Requesting you , there is no need to keep this block since I have understood the policy very well. Please check the other user account was inactive during this long time, there is no similarity in quality of editing , patterns , pages edited by the other user, except one page Performance fabrics since it was the very first thing when I started with Wikipedia and we worked together on this as a common project but without declaring in WP:PAQ. He is senior user than me and his interests are quite different. I used to ask help in editing from him for grammatical corrections etc. I put him in trouble also by doing this wrong thing but this would be a lesson for us and we would not do it again. # Improvement and contributions: First of all I will stop creating articles and delete the drafts and restrict my editing .Secondly I will avoid arguments and debates. This was my first and the last mistake otherwise I always contributed positively and tried to improve the articles. Going forward I will ask permission to assist any senior editor and will contribute more productively. I can contribute in (Improvement of)textile articles (have bot suggested list), Wikipedia Hindi and Punjabi. I accept my mistake and seek apology. I respect the Wikipedia community and believe in justice. Kindly review the decision. In last I assure you that I shall not keep any grudges towards any user irrespective of the judgement. The explanation was necessarily required to show the other side of the coin only. ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 5:14 am, September 1, 2018, Saturday (UTC−5) -->

Decline reason:

Admitted sockpuppetry backed up by CU evidence. The standard offer is available to you in six months. If you continue to ping admins, your talk page access will be revoked. Katie^talk 09:26, 8 September 2018 (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.

There is nothing more I can do for you. You are welcome to share the information you emailed me here, but I have already reviewed and declined your unblock request. Please stop emailing me and please stop pinging admins. --Yamla (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pinging and required information is added in the request.Rajiv Sharma (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Dear Admins. Please help me out of this situation, if my request need any further clarification from my side. ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have an open unblock request, it will eventually be reviewed by an administrator. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: @Materialscientist: @Diannaa: @Jimbo Wales: Respected Admins, Please see if I deserve a 2nd chance .Kindly review my request. Thanks and regardsRajiv Sharma (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a checkuser block, so only a checkuser can unblock you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Appreciate your reply, I am waiting for the checkuser and a favourable action. ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I am sorry to bother you again and again, Please try to understand my situation ~ My only objective was to defend an article and in process a father is helped by his own son. ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Respected Admin, Kindly suggest should I keep on waiting or give up? ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal.3 for review the block

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).

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

Request reason:

Do you unblock or not in these cases, Accepting the punishment and ready to wait till then. I admitted the things but there were something else to be noticed, please do not ignore them i.e. circumstances and evidences, , kindly consider my unblock / standard offer earlier and suggest me how can I contribute during this time. Hopefully Wikipedia admins will not be biased. Please ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you've been told above, you need to wait six months with no socking. As you have been wasting admin time on this talk page since your block, and continued to do so with this appeal after being told to wait and with no change in circumstances. I am revoking your access to this talk page. In six months, you may request an unblock with WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2018 (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.

Help

I made a mistake and admitted it. The circumstances and my pieces of evidence are worthy, please do not ignore them completely. My aim was constructive. Nominator provoked me, and I was inexperienced to deal with things. Moreover, I am not the only victim of the nominator. Don't be biased and please reconsider this case/ request as an exception. If possible guide me how I can contribute till this block ends. Thanks,Rajiv Sharma (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #23184 was submitted on Nov 08, 2018 12:29:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25417 was submitted on May 31, 2019 10:38:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25495 was submitted on Jun 06, 2019 12:32:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25508 was submitted on Jun 07, 2019 09:55:13. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plsss unlock my account user radu9990. Ilegall ban, i don't have multiply network id, it's a mistake.

Plsss unlock my account user radu9990. Ilegall ban, i don't have multiply network id, it's a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.163.100 (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for review the block

talk Dear Admin, Kindly reconsider my block. I shall not repeat my mistake and will contribute positively to the Wikipedia community. RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin, Kindly reconsider my block, I have learned a lot during this one year period and committed to not repeating the same mistake. I understand why I was blocked and will take care of the same in the future. I will contribute positively to the Wikipedia community. Regards Rajiv Sharma RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:18, 21 August 2019 (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.

Help

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin, Please allow me a second chance to be amember of the community. WP:SOCK Understanding: I never denied and always agreeing my mistake the sock puppeting which is a serious crime in wikipedia and Unintentionally I commited that for which I am blocked. I am promising you honestly that i would not do this again. I am not excusing my mistake but it was to protect the page for which I became overcareful and cautious. But now i can learn that I need to follow the policies first. And i will definitely do that. WP: BEHAVE, Will not disrupt: I shall not damage or cause any disruption in Wikipedia articles and to any individuals, I shall sincerely follow the WP:5P, I will follow etiquettes and will not engage in any personal attacks. I shall not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia.I shall avoid any comment on the content, not on the contributor. I shall follow the WP:CONDUCT. Contributions: I will conribute positively by editing textile and other articles,adding pictures etc. I can edit the hindi language articles also. I request you to allow me to be a proud member of the community.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2019 (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.

Help

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).

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

Request reason:

Respected Admin, I confess my inadvertent mistake which caused me a block, i never declined to agree, my block was completely correct. After getting blocked only i could realize the fact how serious it was to overlook a policy. Intentionally or unintentionally a mistake is mistake. And I am remorseful for the same. I affirm that I shall abide by the policies and never repeat the blunder. I shall seriously follow the WP:5P. WP:OWN: In past also i do not have any conflict and disagreement with any of the editors. i am agreeing that i was possessive about the page Performance fabrics and got distracted when the page was conveyed for deletion. I shall manitain the decorum of the community. Kindly allow me a chance: if my request for unblocking gets approved, I will take full accountability and do not violate any of the Wikipedia rules. I want to contribute positively and want to stay with Wikipedia. I am a textile professional and can edit various textile articles. Every new editor passes through the learning curve. I learned a lot during this period of my block. Kindly consider my request. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2019 (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.

Help

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin, Greetings of the day! Confession: Firstly, I am apologetic and liable for my block. In the past, also i never disagreed with the same. A mess created in a sincere effort remains a mess, and to protect a page name Performance Fabrics i caused this derangement and got blocked. The block was necessary, and it made me understood. Sir, now I seek your grace and assure that i will never repeat my fault. Kindly allow me a chance to stay a part of Wikipedia. If unblocked: I shall start from scratch and contribute constructively and positively. I shall assist a senior editor to learn. I am a textile professional and can participate in editing various textile articles. What i will do different: I will not engage myself in any argument and stay away from any debate. I shall follow the WP:5P, WP:OWN and, WP:SOCKS. I shall be careful and disciplined. Why this block is bothering me: The block is seriously affecting my self-respect. I was wrong, and i am punished now, which i think fair and enough for me. I am hopeful that admin can allow me an opportunity. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2019 (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.

Help

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin, Confession: Firstly, I am apologetic and liable for my block. In the past, also i never disagreed with the same. A mess created in a sincere effort remains a mess, and to protect a page name Performance Fabrics i caused this derangement and got blocked. The block was necessary, and it made me understood. Sir, now I seek your grace and assure that i will never repeat my fault. Kindly allow me a chance to stay a part of Wikipedia. Why i was blocked I was not aware that any other account even it is of a family member can not intervene with other's editing and can not vote to support but I did it and it is against the policy WP:SOCKS. Now on i shall take care. If unblocked: I shall start from scratch and contribute constructively and positively. I shall assist a senior editor to learn. I am a textile professional and can participate in editing various textile articles. What i will do differently: I will not engage myself in any argument and stay away from any debate. I shall follow the WP:5P, WP:OWN and, WP:SOCKS. I shall be careful and disciplined. Why this block is bothering me:The block is seriously affecting my self-respect. I was wrong, and i am punished now. And it is a life long lesson for me. Block is no more required: I had sufficient penalty and learned the lesson. I am hopeful that admin can allow me an opportunity. I am sure i will prove the admin, right. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open more than two weeks. Please wait at least six more months, then apply again with a substantially reworded request. Yamla (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2019 (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.

Help

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin, I hope you are doing well with your family, and the people around you are safe. Dear Admin, Confession: Firstly, I am apologetic and liable for my block. In the past, also i never disagreed with the same. A mess created in a sincere effort remains a mess, and to protect a page name Performance Fabrics i caused this derangement and got blocked. The block was necessary, and it made me understood. Sir, now I seek your grace and assure that i will never repeat my fault. Kindly allow me a chance to stay a part of Wikipedia. Why i was blocked I was not aware that any other account even it is of a family member can not intervene with other's editing and can not vote to support, but I did it, and it is against the policy WP:SOCKS. Now on i shall take care. If unblocked: I shall start from scratch and contribute constructively and positively. I shall assist a senior editor in learning. I am a textile professional and can participate in editing various textile articles. What i will do differently: I will not engage myself in any argument and stay away from any debate. I shall follow the WP:5P, WP:OWN and, WP:SOCKS. I shall be careful and disciplined. Why this block is bothering me: The block is seriously affecting my self-respect. I was wrong, and i am punished now. And it is a life long lesson for me. Block is no more required: I had sufficient penalty and learned the lesson. I am hopeful that admin can allow me an opportunity. I am sure i will prove the admin, right. Thanks and regards

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2020 (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.

Help

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin, I pray for well being for you and the people around you. Dear Admin,

Confession: First of all, I am apologetic and liable for my block. In the past, also i never disagreed with the same. A mess created in a sincere effort remains a mess, and to protect a page name Performance Fabrics i caused this derangement and got blocked. The block was necessary, and it made me understood. Sir, now I seek your grace and assure that i will never repeat my fault. Kindly allow me a chance to stay a part of Wikipedia.

Why i was blocked I was not aware that any other account even it is of a family member can not intervene with other's editing and can not vote to support, but I did it, and it is against the policy WP:SOCKS. Now on i shall take care.

If unblocked: I shall start from scratch and contribute constructively and positively. I shall assist a senior editor in learning. I am a textile professional and can participate in editing various textile articles.

What i will do differently: I will not engage myself in any argument and stay away from any debate. I shall follow the WP:5P, WP:OWN and, WP:SOCKS. I shall be careful and disciplined. Why this block is bothering me: The block is seriously affecting my self-respect. I was wrong, and i am punished now. And it is a life long lesson for me.

Block is no more required: I had sufficient penalty and learned the lesson. I am hopeful that admin can allow me an opportunity. I am sure i will prove the admin, right. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Following your request and the discussion below, I have unblocked your account. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view is that whatever you may have done almost two years ago, there is no reason not to give you another chance, so I am in favour of unblocking you. However, I am not a checkuser, and adminsitrators who are not checkusers are not allowed to undo checkuser blocks without consulting a checkuser. I would normally consult the checkuser who placed the block in the first place, but he is retired. Perhaps one or both of Ponyo and TonyBallioni, who have both modified your block at one time or another, would like to comment, or any other checkuser who is willing to help. JBW (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection from a CU standpoint to unblocking. No opinion otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: In case you missed this, CU has no objection to unblocking from a technical standpoint. Do you still want to consider unblocking? only (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

I shall be watching any edit you make in Textiles related areas of the project, as I believe that you lack competence in English language and textiles. WP:CIR applies to ability to understand and write in english too. You failed to answer any of my questions relating to "Performance Fabrics" before you were blocked, please do not return to those areas where we interacted, as I will not allow your lack of competence to affect this project. regards -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to grudgingly written welcome note by Roxy the inedible dog . wooF

Self-declared scholar, you made three mistakes in your three-line note" Sorry, I am disqualifying your mentorship.

I shall be watching any edit you make in Textiles related areas of the project, as I believe that you lack competence in English language and textiles. WP:CIR applies to the ability to understand and write in English too. You failed to answer any of my questions relating to "Performance Fabrics" before you were blocked, please do not return to those areas where we interacted, as I will not allow your lack of competence to affect this project. Regards

Better you stay polite. Any bullying will be reported. I am not here for any revenge. Let me do the productive work that is already declared. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Finishing (textiles), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synthetic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Your recent editing history at Textile shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Finishing (textiles), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shrinkage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot It is corrected [7] ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know

I removed your post from the reference desk because you copied wholesale, including my signature and timestamps making it look as if I had posted. Please dont do that, thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the inedible dog . Hey dog, do you think whatever you do [[8]] is right and others are wrong? Do not dare to mess with me. And reply on the article talk page only, do not spread your shit here.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Stick to the content[[9]].

Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus.
Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia: Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.
Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.
Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it.

Is that clear, You can find more here[[10]] RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it, but clearly, you do not. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You understand deleting only and projecting them as vandalism, and you are proud of the same. You are not sparing the Reference desk in your pursuit. Why are you not discussing the article on its talk page?

I am still waiting for you on the article talk page. Understand that newcomers are also necessary and valuable to the community.

Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kasturi cotton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kasturi cotton 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/Kasturi cotton 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. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets discuss over there at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasturi cotton. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cotton into Kasturi cotton. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and guiding me. I will correct it and follow the same. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I hope the correction is acceptable. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]