User talk:Kkm010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

October 2014[edit]

You were only just warned about adding Google Finance search results and your own original research to articles. You were warned by multiple editors at WP:ANI no less, and then you were blocked for it. You've returned from your block only to start the same thing again at Qualcomm. Stop now or you'll be blocked again. Stlwart111 22:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reliance Industries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media. 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) 12:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

At the Administrators' Noticeboard again[edit]

I've run out of options. You were blocked for adding original research to articles and for edit-warring to keep it there. You committed to no longer adding the same original research to corporate articles. I reverted two instances of exactly that only days after you came back from your block. There are now more examples in your contribution history, so...

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stlwart111 10:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kkm010. Unless you respond to the complaint at WP:ANI and agree to change your approach, it seems possible you will be blocked for disruptive editing. It is not correct to add data to articles said to be from an annual report when you simply scrounged the information from Google. If you claim to use the annual report, you must actually see an annual report as published by the company. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Party[edit]

Hello, I found that your edits to the Bharatiya Janata Party to be disruptive with misleading edit summaries. You have changed the ideological position of the party from right-wing to centre-right without discussion, and without checking the prior talk page discussion. In future, please participate in the talk page discussions instead of making disruptive changes to articles. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry brother.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 11:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Per WP:BLP please don't add this fact without reliable sources, even if it seems natural. Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Kkm010, this is already been explained to you more than once and in fine detail here. You responded to Begoon's comment and then later blanked the page, which signifies you have read the message. Disregarding the specific requirements for inclusion of religion or ethnicity in infoboxes despite multiple requests from several editors is a violation of WP:BLP and if it continues you will be blocked from editing. If you don't think you are able to abide by the requirements for sourcing, self-identification and notability with regard to religion please stay away from adding/changing or editing the information altogether. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ponyo after Materialscientist I am no longer adding any religion or ethnicity without proper source. I have clearly understood Materialscientist point and would abide by rules.Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean just like you said you would do three weeks ago in response to Begoon's concerns here? Do you understand why others are frustrated by your replies that appear to mean little when it comes to practice?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WWE. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Begoontalk 13:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have explained so many times that in "Key People" section only chairman & ceo should be mentioned, but, User:Torrian2014 still adding entire executives name. If you look other company articles no where list all executives name are put. Please try to understand the situation.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand the situation fully. You don't seem to. You've "explained" nothing, anywhere. You have an opinion, unsupported by the documentation, and disputed by other users. If you think your opinion trumps that of other editors, then start a discussion about it, in the proper place, not here.
Do not edit war. The "situation" is that you are a hair's breadth from being indefinitely blocked for pushing your opinion and refusing to discuss your edits. You have the power to change that. If you want to keep editing here I suggest you do so, immediately. Talk to people when your edits are disputed and stop behaving like a bull in a china shop.
Articles have talk pages for a reason - use them when you are reverted. Stop edit warring, and stop playing dumb when you are challenged. I don't think there will be any more warnings. I think an indefinite block will be the next step, and soon. You should also go back, right now, and fix any bad "religion/ethnicity" edits you made which haven't been fixed for you. That might help to head off a block. That is all I have to say here, apart from: "pick up your game, now". Begoontalk 16:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Begoon, I understand your point and would follow your order. What do you think is appropriate for the WWE article especially in the "Key People" section. I believe only chairman & ceo should be mentioned rather than entire list of executives.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
See what I said above. Start a discussion in the proper place. The article talkpage, or the talkpage of the infobox. Not here. Really, your inability/unwillingness to listen to what was said is close to legendary here. My patience is at an end with your self-centered editing, feigned ignorance, and reluctance to collaborate. Did you go back and fix the "religion/ethnicity" edits you made, yet? Any one of them? Step out of line one more time and I'll be fully behind the inevitable move to have you blocked indefinitely. Or surprise us all - fix your problems and edit as part of the community and within policy. Your choice. Begoontalk 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Block me indefinitely brother. You are my inspiration.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Nah - not me. I can't do that, and I hardly come here anyway. But your editing style is now exposed for what it is, and you are watched by many others - so my work is done here. Have fun. Begoontalk 14:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that you waited until you thought nobody was looking, then mostly undid the edit anyway, with a deceptive edit summary of "wikilinks". Your sneaky POV editing style is a disgrace, your respect for consensus and discussion is non existent, and I'm glad of only one thing - I don't actively edit here any more, so I don't need to witness the slow destruction of a place I once cared about by this sort of crap. Enjoy yourself. It used to mean something to edit here, but it's now apparent that your kind of editing will prevail. Good luck. You deserve what you inherit. You also deserve to understand that - but one can't have everything... Begoontalk 18:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent AN/I discussion[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Hi. I've closed this AN/I discussion regarding some of your recent edits. The closing comments are here, and they explain the context for the Discretionary Sanctions warning that appears above. Happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to upload unencyclopedic images, as you did at Bharatiya Janata Party, you may be blocked from editing. Shrikanthv (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


Also familarise with the three revert rule , your talk archieves to be filled with them Shrikanthv (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that. Your edit warring mentality is atrocious. Shrikanthv used the wrong process to nominate the image, so I fixed that for them. Honestly, if you continue edit warring like this, your days editing here are numbered, And you are now watched, closely, by many people. Begoontalk

Nomination of File:Flag of the Bharatiya Janata Party.png for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article File:Flag of the Bharatiya Janata Party.png is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/File:Flag of the Bharatiya Janata Party.png until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shrikanthv (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flag of the Bharatiya Janata Party.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Flag of the Bharatiya Janata Party.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Begoontalk 17:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, you listed the source of this "political logo" as ? A shopping coupon site? I'm now convinced you do not take anything here seriously. Begoontalk 21:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


You may wish to consider whether accusing editors who are merely providing other editors with relevant context and historical links of "pursuing a vendetta", is a good idea. Here's a clue - it's not. Personally attack me just one more time like that and I'll stop being nice. I've tried hard so far. That was your last warning. Cheers. Begoontalk 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)