User talk:Obnoxious

Welcome!

Hello Obnoxious, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Also please be aware that we have a neutral point of view that we maintain in all our articles: your edit from earlier today had to be reverted because it did not conform to a neutral point of view about the subject. -- Francs2000 16:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Top_Field.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I saw that the article St Paul's School, Darjeeling was created and largely edited by you. I hope you also know many stuffs about Darjeeling. Could you please check out the article Darjeeling and see if you could help improving that? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Delhi DareDevils requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Obnoxious. I have reverted your mass addition of Category:Indian Premier League cricketers into the player articles because the Wikipedia's categorisation scheme holds that articles should not be placed in the supercategory if they are already in the subcategory. Since the players are already categorised under Deccan, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore etc, they needn't be in the IPL cat, since Deccan etc are a subset of the IPL players cat. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Obnoxious (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i have no idea why i have been blocked from editing a page i've been editing for a few years now. Do you know more about the subject than me?

Decline reason:

You're not blocked; is there an autoblock in place? What message do you get? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You don't appear to be blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was attacked. It took me like a decade to figure it out. You have to get back to work. All the Best.

Grewal, Hastings 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.155.206 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]