User talk:AvNiElNi-nA

Maintenance tags
Hi! I see that you've tagged a number of articles with maintenance tags using Twinkle. That can be a useful thing to do. However, please make sure that maintenance is really needed before adding such tags. What exactly in the article Auberge de Bavière did you think was out of date, for example? That article is less than a month old, and mostly about events in the 18th century. Please be aware that placing a lot of tags when they are not needed might be seen as WP:Disruptive editing, and have undesirable consequences. Enjoy Wikipedia! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at your contributions, saw almost all of them to be tagging. I echo Justlettersandnumbers statement above, tagging meaninglessly is seen as disruption and it is not conducive to civil collaborative editing. Take for eg. an article created by a new user, s/he may not know the intricacies of Wikipedia and may end up doing something not in accordance with article policies. If you tag his/her article like the way you're doing now it may scare off a potential productive editor – which is not wanted. Or for that matter, like in the article Aamir Khan, I know an editor who works on it very hard, suddenly if he sees a whole lot of tags sticking on top of it, wouldn't it demoralising? You're a new user when you think an article lags somewhere, try to fix it if you can. If you can't then discuss on the corresponding talk page. Use maintenance tags judiciously and only when they are appropriate. Thanks. Face-smile.svg – Soham (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Krimuk90 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. KRIMUK  90  ✉  05:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Smauritus! Wassup? -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  05:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nuisance edits
I'm afraid I'm more pragmatic than the above gentlemen. Many of your edits are simply a nuisance, and accordingly have been reverted - both by me and many others. In general you are challenging the notability of topics and people about which you know nothing, and challenging the reliability of sources, again, about which you know nothing. I strongly advise you to not furnish opinions on things and topics about which you know nothing - do your homework first.

Further, if you do identify a problem, then explain what the problem is, either in the edit summary, or on the page's talk page - simply tagging a page without explaining the problem wastes enormous amounts of other people's time.

Should you want or need help and/or guidance, please feel free to ask questions on my talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * STOP EDITING NOW You have no idea what you are doing. For example, you are adding BLP tags to things that are not biographies of living people. If you continue with such edits, you will be prevented from editing (i.e. blocked). You are about to be listed at WP:AIV. As I said, if you want help, ask. Stop your nuisance edits NOW. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI Pdfpdf (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I had stop doing that. - Thank you. Now please go back and undo all of your edits that have placed Notability and BLP sources tags. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And reliable sources, too, please. (And probably some of the others ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Kangana Ranaut shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   06:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:AvNiElNi-nA, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   06:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's wrong with you, just go and view the history of Kangana Ranaut and user Krimuk first. --- AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Twinkle
Please stop using TW to add BLP maintenance templates to articles that aren't biographies. If you can't use TW properly don't use it at all. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   06:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   07:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Kangana Ranaut. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   07:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Kangana Ranaut
Your edit-warring is removing a referenced section on the age of the subject, and inserting an unreliable source to that claims another DOB. Please stop doing this. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   07:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Kangana Ranaut. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  → Call me  Hahc  21  07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You also violated 3RR, which adds up to this block. Additionally, I am almost certain that you are a sockpuppet of someone, since it's pretty clear from your edits that you are not a new user, or at least that's my impression.  → Call me  Hahc  21  07:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See the Shraddha Kapoor it is acceptable. I gonna update all pages with CINTAA. Including Gauhar Khan, Ragini Khanna many more. CINTAA is a legit account, every actors own a specific account of CINTAA. They registered it themselves using their own ID. AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure but you are not allowed to violate 3RR and get away because of that. If you add something to an article and you get reverted, the following step is to reach the talk page and discuss, not keep reverting. 3RR doesn't care who's right and who isn't, but who crossed the line.  → Call me  Hahc  21  07:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't you get it the user ignore me just view the history of his talk page. Before accusing me. --- AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Krimuk90 has the right to remove things from their own talk page. See WP:TPO. You should not be edit warring on their talk page, you should discuss on the article talk page – see WP:BRD. Mojoworker (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make any sense the user kept on reverting me how do you expect that he will not revert it on the talk page. AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cintaa is a legit account, any actors may get sue by not having the membership of CINTAA, you don't live in India you have no clue about it. Read this http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news-interviews/Ramesh-Taurani-sues-Deepika-Padukone/articleshow/11847001.cms AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Per the results at Sockpuppet_investigations/Smauritius, I have indefinitely blocked this account.  → Call me  Hahc  21  21:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)