User talk:Tejas.B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! -- ImpuMozhi 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] AfD nomination of Indian Beauties

I've nominated Indian Beauties, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Indian Beauties satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Beauties and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Indian Beauties during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.Suncloud 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

  • Explanation. May be the title Indian Beauties wasn't an apt one, but the content of the article is what that matters. Beauty is something rare that is not possessed by anyone. We should try to admire people who represent the beauty of our country on an international platform. This article was only created so as to remind that India is not just a land of snake charmers, but as beautiful as any other country in the world. The content has been presented in a critical point of view, and not vaguely. It does not direct towards racism, vulgarity and any other anti-social elements. So, I would thank everyone for atleast having a glance through my article inspite of my so called 'useless' efforts. Sorry if I had hurt anyone's feelings. —Tejas.B 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Oh! Wikipedia is so great that it has got nothing to do with other's feelings. Do as you wish. I created the article and wrote a jist of the biographies of various beauty pageant winners. But you just modified, twisted, turned it without even consulting my opinion. Delete all the writings contributed by me. Yes, you can do anything because I cannot do anything since I am just a poor user. Truly the world is a deceiving place. All made detrimental comments on me saying that I was completely unencyclopediac. I'll see how your new will stand in the sands of time.

Can anyone just direct me the way to resign membership from the GREAT Wikipedia.

[edit] re List of Indian beauty pageant winners

What is your objection to this article? Herostratus 05:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop erasing that article, OK? Sheesh. Herostratus 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planetary size

Hi, I edited this article in an effort to increase its chances of passing it's AfD as the nom objected to the style of the writing. If you can add some more sources to it, or hard facts, that would be great. Nick mallory 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Earth, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. "[It is the only planet that does not contain life]" That true? Prove it :) — Shinhan < talk > 13:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

I'm really sorry for my silly gesture. It was a editing error which happened by sheer coincidence. It should have been actually as It is the only planet that contains life. Anyways, sorry for that and I hope to provide more informative articles for the constructive extension of Wikipedia in all walks of life.

[edit] Featured articles

Hi - There's actually a fairly involved process for getting articles listed at WP:FA, please see WP:FAC. I've undone your addition of Planetary-size comparison. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits of Katrina Kaif

Your edits to the article on Katrina Kaif have resulted in the article becoming unsuitable for Wikipedia. Much of the material is of tabloid and page 3 nature, and many of the references are non-credible. Please understand what a wikipedia article is meant to be like before making any further edits. An encyclopedia article is NOT a newspaper article. Achitnis (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have removed most of your edits from this article, as almost everything was non-encyclopedic, unreferenced, referenced by non-credible sources, or written in a style that is unsuitable for wikipedia (mostly written in a gushy, PR-style fanbiy manner, ore suited for a fim magazine, not for an encyclopedia. Please do not add more material to the article unless you have discussed this on the article's talk page. Achitnis (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

While your intentions may be good, your execution remains flawed. Your current edits of the article mostly add no additional information (and just duplicate what is already said), represent original research and your own opinions (you speak in a judgemental and editorial style), refers to non-credible sources (often flimy magazines known for their sensationalism and stretching of the truth), etc. This has resulted in an article that reads like a film magazine article, instead of a collection of facts. You also attempt to interpret "facts" you have gathered, which is another no-no (that is original research). And it has caused the article itself to become sloppy and unreadable.

You seem to be particularly attached to this article, or rather, the subject, and that is unfortunately showing in your writing. You are too carried away with the subject. I would suggest that you don't attempt to write about filmy subjects, since your other edits on non-filmy articles tend to be a lot better. Achitnis (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)