User talk:Roseness 12

January 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Qubool Hai has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Qubool Hai was changed by Roseness 12 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.901363 on 2016-01-10T07:49:32+00:00.

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Surbhi Jyoti. ''Please do not overwrite code specifically requesting a reliable source without providing a reliable source which is verifiable by others. Thank you.'' Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sanaya Irani. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT
Hi there, I've had to revert your recent contributions at Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?. Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should be in the 400-700 word range. Your addition brought the section to 1100+ words, which is far too long. Excessive plot detail can present copyright issues. Please note FAQ/Copyright. You are free to continue tightening that summary, but please keep it at a max of 700 words. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edit here brings the plot summary to 889 words, which is still too long. Can you please trim this down to 700? Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing, specifically your persistent addition of bloated plot summaries like here in spite of clear edification about community consensus (WP:FILMPLOT) and copyright concerns as "derivative work". 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop vandalising
Why do you think you can vandalise Wikipedia pages like Razia Sultan (TV series) and get away with it? Stop vandalising. Next time you vandalise this page I will not hesitate to report you to the Wikipedia administrators so stop vandalising! (101.160.156.64 (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Disregard the previous message, you have already been reported because of your past history which involved a 31 day block. You seem to have not learned your lesson. (101.160.156.64 (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Please stop your disruptive editing. (101.160.156.64 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of Varun Toorkey
Hello, Roseness 12. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Varun Toorkey, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Varun Toorkey to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 00:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shakti — Astitva Ke Ehsaas Ki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayub Khan. 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) 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TV
Hi there, if you plan to edit television and film articles, you need to familiarize yourself with our various manuals of style. For television, see the Manual of Style for television and for film, see the Manual of Style for film. This is in response to these edits where you format the cast section in a way that is inconsistent with MOS:TV. Note that the manuals of style represent established community consensus on content and formatting, so any deviations from it would require you to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek a local consensus. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm DatGuy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Madhubala – Ek Ishq Ek Junoon with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of references
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Vivian Dsena, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not remove permitted references from articles Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Cast section formatting again
Re: these edits, this is not how we format TV articles. Note the featured article House (TV series) or the featured article Firefly (TV series). If you'd like to deviate from established community consensus, you're going to need to establish a local consensus, which you must do via discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally "main lead" is redundant and inconsistent with MOS:TV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Humko Tumse Ho Gaya Hai Pyaar Kya Kare. Kaobear''Chat? 22:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Widr (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Vivian Dsena, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not remove references Atlantic306 (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Your second to last edit on Vivian Dsena removed 2 reliable source references, its plain to see in the diff, please do not remove references. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shakti — Astitva Ke Ehsaas Ki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayub Khan. 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) 09:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Rubina Dilaik. -   Managerarc   ™ talk  16:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what's been confusing about my previous notes, but if you're going to format television articles, they need to be consistent with MOS:TV. This is not. When you're ready to talk, feel free to reply below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm copying recent post on my talk page here, because you are more likely to benefit from my reply than I am.
 * Why did u block me for a week! How am I distrubtive editing! It's doesn't mean that am the last person who edited means am the one who did that change! And am adding and taking away simple things NOT BIG THINGS! Before you come and see what am doing, go see other series/actors/singers etc. Wikipedia and fix them! You know I don't fix them because am NOT SURE of the informations because I DON'T WANT to put FAKE information! Roseness 12 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I already explained why I blocked you, because you keep making changes that are not consistent with MOS:TV or other community editing norms. "Main lead" is not an appropriate section heading, and we use consistent formatting across articles, in this case it should have been:
 * ==Cast==
 * ===Main===
 * John Doe
 * ===Recurring===
 * Jane Smith

not
 * ==Cast==
 * ;Main lead
 * John Doe
 * ;Additional cast
 * Jane Smith

Now while we're on the subject, who decided that Laksh Lalwani and Mahima Makwana are the main cast members? You? What guideline did you follow to arrive at that? Are there only two people who appear in the main credits either at the beginning or at the end of an episode?

It's doesn't mean that am the last person who edited means am the one who did that change! When I look at this edit and your name appears on the right hand side, that means you made the edit. I have previously contacted you on your talk page twice before and told you that you should be following MOS:TV. When you keep making changes that are not consistent with these guidelines as you've done here and here and here. I keep talking to you on your talk page, you keep ignoring my comments, so what did you think was going to happen? You didn't have to wait an entire week to respond. I said above when you're ready to talk, reply below. As for your other comments that I should be looking at other articles, that's completely irrelevant. I have to spend time here talking to you because you won't follow established guidelines. If I didn't have to spend time here, I'd be at other articles fixing other problems. So you're completely in charge here. If you start editing per our established guidelines, I won't have to interfere. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TV again
You've done it again here, where you are using semicolons to bold what should be L3 headings formatted with "==" as explained in detail above. We also don't use "Supporting cast" as headings. Since you have yet to explain why you're doing this, I'm starting to get the impression you're doing it to be disruptive. If that's not your goal, then please stop doing it. Your personal preference does not supersede established community guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent comments at my talk page.
Hi, regarding your recent comments on my talk page, since you are more likely to benefit from these discussions, I think we should keep the talk centralized in one place, i.e. on your talk page instead.

Firstly, your posts on my talk page are misplaced. You've written over another user's Talkback template, and while I understand that you might have been confused, which is why you posted in another user's help request, new comments go on the bottom of the talk page. You can create a new section by clicking "New section" at the top of the page. I've fixed these issues for you.

So let's begin.
 * 1) "SUPPORTING CAST ADDITIONAL CAST ITS THE SANE FREAKING THING MOST PEOPLE PUT ADDITIONAL SO THATS WHY GOSH" It's not the same thing, and I didn't suggest you add "additional cast". I suggested you use Main and Recurring. Main characters/cast are determined by the producers, not by editors. Typically main cast are indicated with "Starring" credits, or if there is no designation for "Starring", they are typically the people credited at the beginning of an episode, or prominently at the end. MOS:TV doesn't mention "supporting cast" labels. Recurring cast are people who appear in a series multiple times who aren't listed in opening credits. "Additional" is vague and opens the door for names of people who only appeared once, which is not preferred.
 * 2) "GO look at "Shakti Astitva Ke Ehsaas Ki" wiki someone removed the "PLOT" so why won't u go talk to that person and tell them why" It sounds like you're trying to get me to address other problems as a means of deflecting scrutiny. "Look over there instead of over here!" That's not a rational argument. You keep making odd choices that aren't consistent with community guidelines, so you are attracting my attention. If you don't want me to pay any attention to you, then please start editing per community norms. What someone else has done wrong has no bearing in a conversation about your editing. "So what if I was driving recklessly? Look at that guy, he's a thief!" Not a rational argument.
 * 3) "AND LOOK AM THE LAST ONE WHO EDITED BECAUSE I CHANGED THE NUM OF SEASONS FROM 1 to 01 so DONT THINK THAT AM THE ONE who did IT" Please don't write in all caps. It's considered yelling. Nobody's yelling at you. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say. Please stop adding the zero. We don't write numerals as "01, 02, 03, 04" we write numerals as "1, 2, 3, 4". You've done this at least twice here and here and I'm sure you've done it more times than that, probably when not logged in. Why are you doing it? Please see MOS:NUM. The only time we use leading zeroes are with decimals between -1 and 1, like 0.02, and with 24-hour time, for instance where 8:30am is written 08:30.

Now we have other issues to discuss on top of these issues, because you keep making the same problematic edits over and over.


 * Here you have again reverted the formatting from the equals sign headings to the semicolon headings. Why? What guideline are you following that supports this formatting? And where at MOS:TV are we instructed to create separate headings for former cast? Instead it says:
 * The cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series.
 * Adding a unique list of "Former cast" to the bottom of the list is the opposite of this instruction. The people who are "former" should be indicated somewhere in the middle of either the Main or Recurring sub-sections. So since I've pointed you to MOS:TV numerous times, and I think I was fairly clear in this edit summary, I'm completely at a loss for why you keep changing these things back to their problematic versions.


 * Lastly, calling people "dummies" is not appropriate at Wikipedia. We don't tolerate personal attacks like name-calling. Comment on content, not on contributors, please.

If you wish to respond, I'd appreciate if you'd please do so below to keep the discussion in one place. I've added your talk page to my watchlist. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: this. You're clearly being disruptive by continuing to obnoxiously add the leading zero to the season number, and for continuing the disruptive behavior while logged out, ostensibly to avoid scrutiny. You are welcome to request an unblock by following the directions above, but you're going to need to bring your best communication skills and you're going to need to convince another admin that you understand what you're doing, what you've been told, and why you were blocked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shakti — Astitva Ke Ehsaas Ki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayub Khan. 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) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Response
Re: your comments on my talk page here, I explained to you multiple times on your talk page above what our community guidelines were, and you repeatedly ignored my clear explanations, and yet again added a leading zero. Further, I believe you were editing while logged out here based on the similarity to your problematic edits. And even today you have again incorrectly formatted the cast section. Stop using "pseudo-headings" -- Main cast and Recurring cast should be Level 3 headings. See WP:BADHEAD. Stop adding "Former cast" to cast lists. See WP:TVCAST. Stop reformatting the Cast section of TV articles to be inconsistent with WP:TVCAST. What is so difficult to understand about this? How many times do I have to block you before you understand what I'm telling you. If you make these changes again, I will block you again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to these comments
Re: your comments here, you said, "I didn't know that the main cast and recurring cast have to be in different levels" yes you did because I explained it to you at least twice above and even included a giant visual aid to help you understand it. Read your talk page.

I keep telling you also to read WP:TVCAST, but apparently you refuse to read it. You say "we have to add former cast so people can know that they are no longer acting", but WP:TVCAST says: The cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. Nowhere in there does it say to create a new section for Former cast. Rather, it says that any new cast should be added after any other cast, so you would expect to see former cast somewhere in the middle of the list, not at the end or in a unique section. And if there were character descriptions, it would be perfectly reasonable to indicate when the person left the series.
 * "Sam Khan left the series in 2006 after the character Joe Bloggs was killed in an automobile accident in the third season."

But since you and other editors at these articles keep ignoring our Manual of Style and keep changing these articles to fit some sort of imaginary cookie-cutter format, you keep missing the marks for how content should be presented. If you want to edit television articles, your bibles are MOS:TV and Template:Infobox television. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT
Hi there, re: these changes, as I've previous explained, we have community guidelines for plot length. For TV articles, the general plot section should not exceed 500 words. Your additions, though well-meaning, brought the section from 1115 (already too long) up to 1300 words. Any chance you can bring it under 500? If not the section runs the risk of being cut. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

For this, where you still appear to be oblivious that there are existing community standards for how television articles should look. Removing referenced real-world information about a cast member's departure is extraordinarily unhelpful, and is indistinguishable from vandalism. It also contravenes WP:TVCAST which says, "...focus on real world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series). The key is to provide real world context to the character through production information, and without simply re-iterating IMDb." I've pointed you to this section at least 4 times on your talk page. You also again don't seem to have an awareness of how the cast section should be formatted. "Additional" is not a valid sub-section because it invites indiscriminate additions. "Recurring" is specific, as it means people who have appeared more than once. You also still haven't figured out how to format the sub-sections, and are still using the wrong style of sub-headings, contravening MOS:BADHEAD. I don't know what else to do to communicate with you, so you will be blocked indefinitely until you can convince an administrator that you understand the community rules and are willing to adhere to them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)