User talk:Hypothetical Painter

Welcome!

Hello, Hypothetical Painter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! 10mmsocket (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Shrivastava moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rahul Shrivastava, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Pridemanty (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Fifth-generation fighter, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You may not place demands on an article that editors not revert your changes. You must first gain consensus for your edits, and address concerns raised by other editors. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I appreciate you reaching out and providing feedback on my contributions to the Fifth-generation fighter article. I sincerely apologize if I came across as if I was treating the page as my own or disregarding the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. That was never my intention.

I value the principles of consensus and constructive editing, and I understand that all contributors have a right to edit and improve articles. I will be more mindful moving forward, ensuring that I engage in discussions, respect the perspectives of other editors, and work towards consensus before making significant changes.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn and improve as a Wikipedia editor. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rahul Shrivastava (April 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GSS 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 people). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Diplomats are not automatically notable; notability must be established through independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. Most of the sources in this draft are primary and focus mainly on his appointments. The few secondary sources fail to provide in-depth, independent coverage. As per WP:RSP, ANI is considered marginally reliable and generally unsuitable for establishing notability, especially in politically sensitive contexts.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rahul Shrivastava and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

GSS ^💬 14:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical Painter (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical Painter (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical Painter (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]