Wikipedia

User talk:SikkimFrontier

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dr. Dilip Pandey - Wikipedia Page (January 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by RangersRus 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 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.
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.
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 it after they have been resolved.
RangersRus (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dr. Dilip Pandey - Wikipedia Page (January 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by GGOTCC were:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please see the reply at the Help Desk for more
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 it after they have been resolved.
GGOTCC 01:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, SikkimFrontier! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! GGOTCC 01:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dilip Pandey (academic) (January 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gheus 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.
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 it after they have been resolved.
Gheus (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for multiple people using the same account; see WP:Compromised accounts. Furthhermore, it appears you are WP:Not here to build an encyclopedia and are instead focused on promoting a special interest, even to the point of making demands on an unpaid volunteer community that unacceptable content be published. You would do well to remember that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, particularly deadlines that you or your government wish to impose.
Although a compromised account cannot be unblocked, you may still create a new account that represents only you as an individual, and that account must not be accessible to anyone else but you as an individual. Be aware that your new account may be blocked also if you continue the same behavior described above.  ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
hello, this is the original user, ca I be ublocked pls SikkimFrontier (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm this account is no longer compromised, i changed my pass SikkimFrontier (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And why, exactly, should we take the word of a compromised account? You could be anyone, because this account was compromised. The licensing terms used by the Wikimedia Foundation requires that each edit be attributable to a person, and this becomes impossible once an account is compromised.
As advised above, you may create your own account. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only have 1 email for myself, I can prove it in any way you want, the account is nolonger compromised. SikkimFrontier (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The account was compromised, which means you could be anyone. You are now indistinguishable from any random person on the internet, and there is no technical way to determine if the account is actually no longer compromised as you claim. Therefore, this account will not be unblocked.
This is the third time you are being told: You may create a new account belonging only to you. You are not blocked from creating a new account. That is the only way you can continue participating on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You will also need to declare as a paid editor as you say you are on a public relations team. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to have a different email address. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]