User talk:PadmaDharma101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 2008

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Brahma. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Brahmana.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Brahmana.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

The image Image:Brahmana.jpg you added the GFDL tag to is a copyvio from Exotic India site, where the original painting is on sale. Therefore I have reverted your false tag. Note that falsely claiming copyright is likely to get you blocked from editing. Please don't add copyright text or images to wikipedia again. Abecedare (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Brahma hc67.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Brahma hc67.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Abecedare. MBisanz talk 06:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI report

FYI. Abecedare (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saravana

Why did you remove the majority of the content from Saravana? CopaceticThought (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your edits or they may be construed as vandalism. CopaceticThought (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on Saravana

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saravana. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting explanation

You removed valuable information. Others have also reverted you. If you want to add the arabic stuff you may add it underneath the informaton you removed. You also removed refed info.    Juthani1   tcs 23:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I readded it    Juthani1   tcs 23:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

re [1], you may want to be more careful not to confuse WP:VANDAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. dab (𒁳) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)