User talk:Hrfunmola

February 2014
Hello, I'm Krimuk90. Your recent edit to the page Shaadi Ke Side Effects appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KRIMUK  90  ✉  17:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Shaadi Ke Side Effects. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. KRIMUK  90  ✉  17:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shaadi Ke Side Effects 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.

In addition, your edits are not supported by reliably published sources, and the content you are inserting into the article doesn't even actually reflect the websites you are linking to, and even if it did, that content would not be appropriate for insertion in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Shaadi Ke Side Effects, you may be blocked from editing. ''Unreliable websites posting about how a cricket match "may" influence a film release doesn't count as encyclopaedic. So please stop warring on it. KRIMUK  90 ''  ✉  17:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Shaadi ke Side Effect
I saw you deleting Critical reception from the post, request you not to edit anything which is genuine and should be thereVaibhav.times (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Shaadi Ke Side Effects
See WP:BRD get consensus, then add the changes. Jim1138 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shaadi Ke Side Effects, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Get consensus first before reverting! KRIMUK  90   ✉  17:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shaadi Ke Side Effects 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. Jim1138 (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But sir these changes are very old. new editors should delete after making consensus. See how all the bolly wood sites have bashed the music and Cricket craze effect on indians. all information is on internet. Any ways i am not re edit it now because i am tired of this edit war with a bunch of editors who are in no mood to listen others or effort to verify and force others in to edit war. Hrfunmola (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that bad content had not been removed immediately upon its improper insertion is irrelevant. There is no need to get agreement beforehand to remove content with 3 strikes against it. There IS a requirement that content accurately reflect reliable sources before it is reinserted into an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very sleepy. Please help by locating more and more references by putting some good faith effort. by the end of the effort you will agree with all three insertions. 1 Cricket effecting 2 music reviews mixed to bad 3 Trailer recieved coldly due to miscasting of vidya and C grade potee jokes . Even if you keep insisting Tomorrow evening the business of the movie and box office report will repeat what i told you in advance through proper Bolly wood trade information web sites. Million of people visit these bolly wood web sites and you are declaring them un reliable sources. Not edit warring now with self perception en forcers. bye
 * Sorry, but I will not ever agree that "reception of the trailer" or "speculation about potential impacts on the BO numbers" no matter how reliably sourced are worth mentioning in the lead. And I dont see any actual value in the body either, so I have no intention of spending my time looking for reliable sources to back such claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw you deleting Critical reception from the post, request you not to edit anything which is genuine and should be thereVaibhav.times (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom and Krimuk90 I told you yesterday that trailer and music failed to create desired buzz still you kept wrongly arguing that all bolly wood sites are not reliable but you forgot that bolly wood news from all such sites are 99 out of 100 times correct in the past. You can conduct an audit of any past news after which you will also agree with me. NOW see the result of box office reception news from Indicine http://www.indicine.com/movies/bollywood/shaadi-ke-side-effects-box-office-opening/ and Box office india http://boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/shaadikesideeffectshasaverageopening#.UxBKlOOSy_w and addatoday http://www.addatoday.com/2014/02/shaadi-ke-side-effects-box-office.html MOVIE TAKES A SLOW TO AVERAGE START. In the evening you will see the news of cricket effecting collections. NEXT TIME never argue with RS on Bollywood because we are WP helping hands.

Vaibhave reviews are mixed and you deleting bad reviews and adding good ones. Please be impartial and put every kind of reviews. Like, NDTV Saibal Chatterjee says Sadly, a large part of Shaadi Ke Side Effects, despite charming pivotal performances by Farhan Akhtar and Vidya Balan, has nothing new to offer beyond convenient homilies on gender politics within the confines of a marriage. Zeenews Aparna Mudi says The first half is all you expect from a rom-com, it is funny, quirky, set at an even pace and mirrors modern marriages somewhat successfully. But the humour fizzles out after that. It gets lengthy and somewhat loses the appeal that it promises. Indian Express says Shubhra Gupta marriage takes two, and the tango here is only from Sid’s perspective : how about showing us what it could be like from Trisha’s ? Biswadeep Ghos says of the casting that "One can visualise Farhan as Rahul's Sid, but Vidya as Mallika's Trisha is tough to imagine. "The side effects of sequels". India Today.. Sneha May Francis writes Saket’s narrative slumps innumerable times over the two-hour-and-twenty-five-minutes screen time.http://www.emirates247.com/entertainment/films-music/bollywood-review-did-vidya-balan-and-farhan-akhtar-nail-it-in-shaadi-ke-side-effects-2014-02-27-1.539812

Your recent edits
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: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Final warning
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Shaadi Ke Side Effects, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Stop inserting non grammatical sentences and not fully representing the source. We don't simply plunk headlines.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what I have done wrong. How could it be called vandalism. I just put information not from my own self but from very reliable source Business insider. see http://www.businessinsider.in/entertainment/movies/Box-Office-Shaadi-Ke-Side-Effects-Fails-ToHit-A-High-Note-Anuradha-Just-A-Shoddy-Tear-jerker/articleshow/31393894.cms  Hrfunmola (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not change properly written English sentences to ungrammatical sentence fragments. -- Neil N   talk to me  02:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Your addition to Shaadi Ke Side Effects 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 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&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Neil N  talk to me  03:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Done as per your request. Hrfunmola (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not "done". See WP:PARAPHRASE. Stop copying descriptions and phrases from other websites. -- Neil N  talk to me  05:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not even a paraphrase. It is a straight copy. "...depend heavily on the non theatrical avenues to take it to safety zone." Do not do this. -- Neil N  talk to me  05:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)