User talk:Bunnypranav

Hi Bunnypranav! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ✗plicit 14:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcoming invite! Bunnypranav (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Suchitra Academy Hyderabad Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 01:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, I am actually drafting the article in which the image should be used for. I didn't understand how to mention that in the image, so I put it under the rationale of fair use for article. I would be grateful if you could tell me how to include that in the image, or what else I can do to make it not speedy deletable. Bunnypranav (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw that you marked Draft:The Perception of Pain and Our Emotional Response for deletion under G1. However, G1 only covers nonsense of the 'no reasonable person can make any sense of this' kind. So while keyboard-bashing and incomprehensible drivel can be deleted under G1, coherent things that Wikipedia is not cannot. Since it was a draft, we can wait for WP:G13 to deal with it in six months. Hope this helps! QwertyForest (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for correcting my mistake, I believe that the page is violating some other criteria, as we can see that the content is just some copy pasted stuff from a book or something. It looks like the creator has used the page like a web hosting platform. Anyways some other user has placed G11 CSD on the page. Thanks for the correction! Bunnypranav (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment requesting a reliable source to remove WP:NOTNEWS/WP:UNDUE entry that doesn't have consensus is not grounded in policy practice. The political entry was made in the last week to an article on a chemical compound. It should be removed pending talk page consensus. ConstantPlancks (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ConstantPlancks,

I understand that I may have given the wrong reason for the denial of that request, but please make sure not to delete other editor's comments on a talk page. Feel free to make the edit request as unanswered and post your reason for not accepting any request.

Also, about the edit itself, based on this section, it clearly states that there is difference of opinion on the issue. User Dmarquard and Drsruli have updated the section to more reflect the actual proven sources, add appropriate sections, and also removed the unsourced material. I also agree with his comment It's encyclopedic and merits inclusion, but the article could use restructuring. I believe the agreed upon restructuring has been done, the current version agrees with your request of It's enough to link to this article from the pager attack article.

Thanks!

Bunnypranav (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Extended Confirmed" restrictions were implemented after a new editor edit warred to keep the material in that article. That editor was blocked. The request was to restore the article prior to that disruption and remove the event they insisted should be implemented. It's odd that you believe you are implementing the talk page section that I started in response to the blocked editors addition. Your first comment and most recent comment lead me to believe you are not fully understanding the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantPlancks (talk • contribs) 02:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ConstantPlancks Thanks for the explanation. If I am not wrong, the user(s) would have been blocked due to editing warring, not adding the content. So, if the content agrees with Wikipedia policies, then it need not be removed just because the editor(s) was blocked.

Also, as you said, I have not fully understood the complete issue in this case, so I would like to back out of the discussion, due to my limited knowledge of the scenario. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. Please feel free to open another edit request if you still have any requests, and I will not interfere in the issue.

Thanks Bunnypranav (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Creed Shadows has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.Xslyq (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Xslyq,

Thanks for the invite, but I believe that I do not have any knowledge in the topic to comment on such a likely controversial topic.

Anyways thanks for the invite. Bunnypranav (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bunnypranav, Your comment on your changes to the Itaakpa rock shelter article says that you did: Typo fixing, that the reference list was missing and that you did general fixes. I looked at the preceding version of the article and the reference list was there. Also I don’t see any trace in the archive of typo correction or general fixes. What’s going on? Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dobeaucoup Sorry for the late reply.

The regional of trailing spaces and simplifying the link were the general fixes. You added a hearing for References, but forgot to add the {{ Reflist }} template, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. I added that in my semi-automated WP:AWB edit.

Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Noted and thanks. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your in-depth set of eyes on Allbirds. Here's to you. Ornov Ganguly TALK 14:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oganguly Thanks a lot, appreciate it. Bunnypranav (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those links due to the reconfiguring of List of United States federal judges by longevity of service as detailed here. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]