User talk:Smauritius

November 2013

Hello, I'm SQGibbon. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Shraddha Kapoor, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

The burden is on you to supply sources for your claims. We do not have to leave the article in an unsourced state just because you claim you are going to add them. Please read WP:BRD which basically states that you made an edit, I reverted, now it's time to discuss it on the talk page. Do not revert my edit till you have achieved a consensus view that your edit is appropriate or you specifically address my concerns. Also, please read WP:TONE, as it stands your edits sound a lot like promotional material or what one would find on entertainment websites and in general are not the right tone and unencyclopedia. Also read WP:OWN which states that you do not own any article on Wikipedia. Just because you are the major contributor to an article does not mean that you get to make edits that violate the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Also read WP:3RR which states that you will be blocked for edit-warring if you continue to revert my edits. Your edits have many, many problems that you are not addressing. Read up on the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia and then make edits or ask other people for help. SQGibbon (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My initial edit only addressed the worst of the problems your edits created for the article. I was very aware of what I was doing. In my edit summary I indicated that there were even more issues with the article -- both with your edits and those of other people. Given that another editor has expressed similar concerns over your edits perhaps you should take this opportunity to read up on the links provided and if you have any questions about how to add the material you think should be in the article you can ask for help. SQGibbon (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Shraddha Kapoor. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shraddha Kapoor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. SQGibbon (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you should impose everything on talk page before reverting it. Despite, you had the superior position on wiki that does justify everything you do is perfect. You should impose on the talk page before reverting, just see my actions and yours. You had remove all the basis info alongside with reliable sources and present an inappropriate tags. I think you should receive warning posts not me. --- L'Oréal Smauritius ^{Parce que vous le valez bien!} 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know to whom you are talking, but you left the same message on my talk page. You have now reverted a fifth time in the article. I'll give you a little time to self-revert and take your issues to the article talk page. Otherwise, I will have to file a report at WP:AN3. Just so it's clear, you are adding unencyclopedic, vigorously puffed-up material to the article, which is not acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

While I was writing this, a third editor reverted you. If you leave the article alone, I don't intend to file a report.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23, count well i had reverted only third time and which unencyclopedic, vigorously puffed-up and unacceptable info are you talking about??? --- L'Oréal Smauritius ^{Parce que vous le valez bien!} 14:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's more complex than I had at first thought. You've reverted five times, each time in a series of consecutive edits ending at 12:30, 13:16, 13:32, 13:58, and 14:22 UTC. Examples of unencyclopedic puffery: "Notoriously recognized due to" and "To whet the hunger of acting", not to mention the gallery itself. Examples of unencylopedic poor English are throughout. Use of the word "flop" is unenyclopedic. Also, you committed a WP:BLP violation when you stated that she confessed to cheating in school - I see nothing in the cited source that says that.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Hahahahahahaha, a fellow editor came and claimed everyone can edit on wiki no one had the ownership despite, i was major contributor of the article, in which purpose and aspect your dedicating me to leave the article. You have not even clarified which phrases are unencyclopedic?? so far. Even peep at your edits well, had correct it to some levels. Okay, come on go ahead report, let me see for which reason and cause you will do it. --- L'Oréal Smauritius ^{Parce que vous le valez bien!} 14:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, agreed as far as i know the confession on cheating was presented with a source published on The Times of India, other source was in Youtube but i didn't update it as Youtube sources are inaccurate. And the word flop had been mentioned in many numerous FA/GA articles. Also, the other time i had edited the article i had not used the following phrases "Notoriously recognized due to" and "To whet the hunger of acting", please in term you're accusing, view the history check info well. Check this out she confessed she cheated ---- > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VwFHTPaEEg The times of India source you had removed it dear. Just go and check. I am loving this conversation, wow!!! ---- L'Oréal Smauritius ^{Parce que vous le valez bien!} 14:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your signature

Please change the customizing of your signature to eliminate L'Oréal from it. Also, remove the L'Oréal logo at the top of this page. WP:CUSTOMSIG states, "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users." In this instance, it's like having a promotional user name. It appears you are representing L'Oréal and promoting their products.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Even more clear is WP:IU, which states that the criteria for inappropriate user names "also apply to signatures."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Just ignore me if you had problem with me, i don't think it is possible to change a username on wiki so far. --- L'Oréal Smauritius ^{Parce que vous le valez bien!} 15:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your user name is Smauritius. You customized the appearance of your user name in Preferences when you sign a post. Just change or remove the customization and you're done with the signature issue, although you still must remove the logo at the top of this page. As an aside, a user name can be changed at Wikipedia, but in this instance it isn't necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

But why should i?? I mean this user page/user talk page is mine, i can do everything that i want to do? what wrong with that. I am girl i use L'Oréal everyday this is my favorite brand so what the big deal. --- L'Oréal Smauritius ^{Parce que vous le valez bien!} 15:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You can use L'Oréal as much as you like but you can't promote it here, either on your talk page or through your user name. I'm tired of playing games. You can dispose of this issue properly, or I can report the problem. It's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

OMG! L'Oréal is the world's largest cosmetics company, how can i promote it. Come on!, just because i'm using it as my signature i am promoting it. And, promoting it how/when/where? Can we actually promote brands on Wiki?? --- L'Oréal Smauritius ^{Parce que vous le valez bien!} 16:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's necessary to change, unless there are also problematic edits related to this. An editor with a signature (and username) that could be seen as similarly promotional passed WP:RFA with more than 100 supports and no opposes, and still has the same username and signature. The difference is that that editor's talk page doesn't contain a logo. Peter James (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Gurgaon gang rape

I have deleted your addition of 2013 Gurgaon gang rape to Wikipedia, as it added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. The material in your article appears to be substantially taken from this copyrighted article. 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—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Smauritius. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 16:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi, Smauritius, your user and talk pages have been vandalized twice by the same person using different IP addresses. The edits were reverted, and both IPs have been blocked, but there may be more. Let me know if you want your user page or talk page (or both) semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure i badly need it, both my user page and talk page, Thank you so much Bbb23 --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 17:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you want both pages protected? How long would you prefer?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

yeah both, just for 1 week. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 18:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

--

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Birth category on Nigaar Khan

That edit confused me; I also tried to find a reliable source using Google, but I found nothing. Thank you for the self-revert ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToBeFree (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry dear, her DOB is wrong, i had presented a wrong one. -- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 17:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for page protection of Nigaar Khan

Hi, is there any reason for moving the request from the RPP page to the talk page of the article? I added it to the RPP page again because I didn't see that you already requested the protection some time ago. O.o ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not currently vandalizing that page as an IP to give a reason for the request, I hope? Sorry if I'm wrong, but it looks very... strange. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigaar_Khan&action=history&year=2013&month=12 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smauritius. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Re: "You seem quite retarded, do actually all German behave like that??"[1] See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Geniac (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry! --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 04:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You risk being blocked if this reoccurs, just a note. Epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ho, ka nahi! (Yes, Of course!) in Marathi language --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 16:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sofia Hayat

I please revert to Sofia Hayat on twitter where she says herself her dog..please can you correct this she has also stated that the daily mail article is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocahnontas (talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sofia Hayat

Please also check imdb for her dob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocahnontas (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Please stop removing sourced content. The article identifies her age and simple math from the date of publication results in the year of birth. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shraddha Kapoor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blockbuster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

Could you explain this revert? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, i figure out who are you to rate an article in Wikipedia??? Exercising this act without any notice and without any discussion? Sorry! i don't support it. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 14:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating" per WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ. IMO, the article satisfies the basic criteria for a C. I don't need anyone's support to do this act. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

hahaha, oh really?? you're not the major contributor of the page, by the way, justify the following tags, which element is missing in the article, where exactly it needed reliable sources to prove the facts, need editing for clarity, balance, or flow etc... Despite you don't need anyone support to perform the act, that does not mean whatever actions you performed will be accepted, sorry again, i don't agree. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 18:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles should be reviewed only by users who have made null or few contributions to it, and not by top contributors as you presume. Being the major contributor no way assumes ownership of article. Anyone is free to edit articles! I see your non-sensical revert has been undone by another user. Feel free to make further reverts, if you wish to get blocked. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't give me messages of being block as i fully aware about my actions, we are currently disputing about Shraddha Kapoor, i will really appreciate if you would prove facts before exercising an act, thank you so much --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 13:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dont remove the Wikiproject Biography template from an article about a biography. Doing so is disruptive and repeatedly removing the project banner will lead to you being blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh!, okay the Wikiproject Biography template will be remove but the rate quality will actually be demolish. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 13:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what's your problem. A "C" is definitely higher than a "Start class". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

Please do not add peacock words to this article. The reviews are the reviews. If they are good, even great, then fine. But we do not grade reviews here. Fiddle Faddle 16:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@ User:Timtrent whatever, BTW! explain which word exactly is peacock, these particular one she earned great reviews, really we do not grade reviews here. Dude, there are numerous articles related to Media and Drames, rate reviews, stop them first, then it will automatically stop here. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 16:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Words like "Great" fall under WP:PEACOCK. Just because other crap exists it doesn't mean that we should follow the same. You currently seem to edit war with three users. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It should be abundantly obvious to you from my reversion of your edit. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has never been relevant. Additionally I am not to be referred to as 'Dude'. Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN

You do not WP:OWN the article and NO ONE needs to ask your permission to edit it.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@ User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom I know you don't seek my permission, i'm also aware of that i don't own the page, i'm just explaining you talk about the page before exercising. Recently, i had noted that you had rate the article, due to personal afflictions, in other words, who hell you are to tell/dictate, what posts/position and actions i should exercise on Wikipedia. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 16:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

They are another editor, just as you are. Please remember WP:CIVIL and step away from this issue if you can not be civil. Fiddle Faddle 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Smauritius, you are edit warring again in the article. Too many editors are disagreeing with your edits. You should spend more time on the talk page and less in the article. You keep pushing the envelope.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again you are inviting troubles to come on your way by making personal attacks. This is going to lead you nowhere. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not following other craps on Wikipedia, i'm actually clearing the confusion, if FA/GA or any articles in Wikipedia indicating a specific words, it is successfully passed, it is not logical to remove a word on the basis of useless, baseless, inaccurate and not encyclopedic, the so called-words are as follows, * flop not encyclopedic, but it is currently presented in GA article - Ranbir Kapoor * positive and great reviews, in FA articles Kareena Kapoor Khan and Deepika Padukone. There are many more more. So confusion, big question how come that?? All editors here are actually in a superior positions. Give me the following explanation, i want to know? --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 16:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Shraddha Kapoor. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your "Under construction" tag and your edit summaries lead me to beleive that, despite your protestations, you are asserting a right of ownership to this article. You must cease and desist. In view of prior discussions on your talk page I have chosen an elevated level of warning. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@User:Timtrent, wow that's great actually when exactly i'm trying to solve the confusion, just receive a threatening and warning message of being block from editing. All this occur because, i'm the major contributor of the page, i'm still confused which acts is fan-siting here, the addition of great and flop or the under-construction tag in the page. Sometime while, it was you who post the so-called WP:CIVIL link. Exactly, justify and clarify why i had received the warning message. Or else, i'm still living in the illusion tend to believe a specific word mention in FA/GA such as Flop, great and positive are successfully accepted, it has the right to be accepted in any articles. If you can explained feel free to do it, if can't then i'm sorry i didn't received your warning message --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 19:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have discovered the issues related to ignoring warning messages. Please take the time of your short block to reflect on how you might act better. I can organise a very good mentor for you if you wish, one outside the formal mentoring scheme here, who wishes to assist editors who have challenges with the rules here. When you return from your block, if you wish for this, please leave a message on my talk page. I will not be watching for a reply here. The warning message informed you of the imminent danger of a block if you did not cease your disruptive behaviour. It was not a threat. These warnings are precisely what they say they are, a warning. The warning scheme escalates depending upon the urgency and/or the frequency of the undesirable behaviour exhibited. By continuing your behaviour you chose to be blocked for a short while. It was your free choice, and you exercised it by ignoring warnings. Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Smauritius_disruption. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Shraddha Kapoor

Your recent editing history at Shraddha Kapoor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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.

Edit warring is pointless, however when it's about maintenance tags it's even more ridiculous. Can you please move past it and discuss the issues on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Shraddha Kapoor. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• You have continued to make edits related to the very long edit war without discussing it first (and given the warning above I would have expected you to avoid editing the article unless others agree with you). I have blocked you for 3 days, after the block ends I strongly advice you to avoid making edits to the article unless you have some agreement on the article's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Would you please explain why you believe this edit wasn't a continuation of the previous edit war or where the consensus for the change is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)