User talk:Sudhir7777

Sudhir7777, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Sudhir7777!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russias economy is bigger than Italy

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=58&pr.y=8&sy=2012&ey=2013&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=922%2C136&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=

so whats your fuss about changing it?--Crossswords (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Poverty in India without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Your recent editing history at Economy of India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are again edit warring. You need to discuss your changes on Talk:Economy of India --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Economy of Pakistan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your source

"The World Bank will produce new official estimates in the coming days, but our preliminary estimates suggest the share of people in the developing world living below the absolute poverty line of $1.25 per day in 2010 “fell” by nearly half, from about 19.7 percent to 11.2 percent, thanks to the revisions."
"Completely agree that these are preliminary, unofficial estimates, and we look forward to a new set of official numbers from the poverty team at the World Bank"

Please stop using unofficial estimates. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economy of Pakistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nominal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

India GDP.

IMF's latest data on India's GDP figures can be found here:

International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database, UPDATED on April 8, 2014.

I suggest that you check the figures from this LATEST IMF update before reverting my edits. Moreover, we are NOT even half way through 2014, so it's asinine, moronic, and illogical to use 2014 forecast as the official GDP.

Cheers!

DonitzLiebt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 forecast

Please note that the 2014 figures are just estimates while the 2013 are actual figures. So it makes sense to use the actual ones and wait for the figures of 2014. Please stop reverting Thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 14:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP adding 2014 forecasts to the article. This is your final warning ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 14:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Economy of India, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Abhishek ^Talk 16:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economy of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudhir7777, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudhir7777. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you evade your block again I'll switch the block to indefinite.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudhir7777, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

— Abhishek ^Talk 02:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudhir7777, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economy of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Economy of India. — LeoFrank ^Talk 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Economy of Pakistan, you may be blocked from editing. Mar4d (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history at India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history at Mumbai Metro shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Please, read WP:TPG to learn how to participate on talk pages properly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sudhir7777 reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your addition to Panipat has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for disruptive editing including edit warring across multiple pages, copyright violations, and nationalistic edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted during your last spate of socking, if you continued to create socks to evade your blocks I would change your block to an indefinite one. As you have continued to thumb your nose at Wikipedia's policies, I have indeed changed your block length to indefinite.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudhir7777, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Martin H. (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]