User talk:Suicune water

Dear Suicune water, you keep reverting back to your version of Maattrraan despite multiple warnings; your version is unencyclopedic. Why do you think it's being reverted everytime? You first have to familiarize with Wikipedia and its guidelines. There are numerous errors in your version. I do list a few here: These are just a few points. You are behaving stubborn and adding back your version again and again. No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. Do not simply readd your version of the article, rather work on the current version and improve it. Thanks! Johannes003 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Moreover, Maatraan comes with a very familiar and attractive tagline: "Sometimes the End is just the Beginning" - this statement is unsourced as well as subjective.
 * "supergoodmovies.com", "suriyaonline.com", "moviecloudz.com" and "kollyinsider.com" are unreliable sources. Not every site is accepted in Wikipedia.
 * Your version includes many peacock terms like "acclaimed", "super sleek action scenes" and "unique".
 * The line, "Suriya would be playing the role of conjoined twins whose names are Vimalan, who is is a soft-spoken youth with communist ideology and Akilan who is fun-loving freaky youth" is a) unsourced, b) inserted in the wrong section and c) a one to one copy from some other site.
 * The line, "It can also be noted that Actress Isha Sharvani has been roped in to perform an item song in the movie" is redundant (it's already added in the prose) and unsourced too.
 * The producer's name is Kalpathi S. Aghoram, why do you remove the "S. Aghoram"? Why do you remove wikilinks? Why do you remove templates? Why are you changing parameters in a template?

July 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Maattrraan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. It is not permissible to simply decide "you are right" despite others' concerns and Wikipedia-wide style-guidelines DMacks (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. DMacks (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Maattrraan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I strongly recommend you read WP:RM and WP:EW so you don't wind up having your edit privileges revoked permanently. DMacks (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)