User talk:Skanchans

visit

Now if you need more information on Shri.Suparno Satpathy you could search the internet too.it will be nice not to delete inormation and show disrespect to a noted social activist and political leaer of Orissa / India.It will be nice if you and the other editor friends of yours aquire more information on Shri.Satpathy and place it on the said article after restoring the same as it was before.

Skanchans (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These references are a step in the right direction. I'll copy this to the appropriate talk page as it's probably more appropriate to reply there. You will be able to join in once your 48hr block expires. By the way, it's probably a good idea to keep contributions here (and on any talk page) in time order by everybody posting new messages at the bottom, or indenting as I have when replying to others. I haven't edited this page because it's not my talk page, but you may wish to do so. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Suparno Satpathy, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suparno Satpathy article

Hello there, I'm sorry that this article is receiving some criticism, but if you would be willing to join with other editors and discuss it we might be able to make some repairs. Unfortunately at present the article fails to make the case for the notability of its subject. Not only must they meet the criteria (follow the links from the blue-link I've just typed in) but we must be able to cite some reputable sources to confirm that other people (not just you) think he is notable.

There is a systematic bias against non-English/US topics on English Wikipedia, and it would be a shame for this article to be deleted if he really is notable. But without some evidence of notability, the article just sounds like a promotional piece. Please reply here, or on the deletion discussion page. Please don't delete the AfD box from the front of the article again: it very clearly says that you should not do this, and repeated deletions after clear warnings will very likely result in a block.

By the way, blanking your talk page is not a brilliant idea, as people may assume that you are concealing things. Every warning that goes on your page is still visible in the history, however often you blank. If you want to tidy your talk page, a better bet is to archive it. Best wishes - Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 17:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted above, your account was blocked by another admin for deleting the AfD tag from the article. I deleted the article because deletion of the article was previously debated, and consensus was to delete. Please discuss how the subject is notable and what sources demonstrate it before you attempt to create another article about him. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for repeatedly removing Articles for deletion notices and comments from pages in violation of the three-revert rule despite being asked not to do so. If you wish to cooperate with the community, you are welcome to do so after the block expires.

GlassCobra 19:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]