User talk:Brinkidiom

August 2013

Your recent editing history at Islam in the United States 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. Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A report has been filed with your name in it

Sorry for the trouble. But your recent edit pattern has set off a few alerts. I would like to AGF but to eliminate doubt I have opened a Sockpuppet check--Inayity (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet tag removal

You are free to remove the tag for now but note that it was neither outrageous nor disrespectful, in contrast to the edit summary you used to remove it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

You also liked this image or are you playing around?--22 Male Cali (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What that free image has to do with anything?--Brinkidiom (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

200 and 300 crore club

You moved Bollywood 100 Crore Club to Bollywood 200 Crore Club and Bollywood 310 Crore Club. Shouldn't that be Bollywood 200 Crore Club and Bollywood 300 Crore Club? DMacks (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I can change it to that. I just took the bar higher as there are three over 310 grossers already.--Brinkidiom (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to what you suggested.--Brinkidiom (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that all of the moves have been disputed (and you yourself stated it's not a bar based on anything except your own preference), I've undone it all, and left a starting point for discussion on the talkpage. DMacks (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unaceptable moving of Bollywood 100 Crore Club to Bollywood 200 Crore Club and Bollywood 300 Crore Club

Hello! U have made an unaceptable moving of Bollywood 100 Crore Club to Bollywood 200 Crore Club and Bollywood 300 Crore Club.

Talking of bollywood you must know that they count the 100 Crore Club... If you were interested in creating Bollywood 200 Crore Club and Bollywood 300 Crore Club you would have created another page or another section... You have definitely ruined a page that I created... If you don´t restore the page I will talk to administrators of Wikipedia and will report you for this action which is not acceptable... (Dr. Shahid Alam(Talk to Me) 10:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

There's nothing an editor can do that another editor (perhaps with administrator assistance) cannot undo, and there's always room for rational discussion rather than jumping right to threats, especially since User:Brinkidiom even stated a good rational basis for his changes. DMacks (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New York University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New York University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of New York University alumni may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Burlington Coat Factory]] ([[Burlington Coat Factory|Monroe G. Milstein]]), [[American Express]] (([[Harvey Golub]]), [[Greenwich Associates]] ([[Edward H. Bersoff]]) and [[CBS]] ([[Laurence Alan

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of New York University alumni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Patterson (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) 10:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brinkidiom (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've unfortunately been through the process here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fareed30, and it's been proven that I'm not abusing Wikipedia or breaking any of its rules. Though I'm using a shared computer, that cannot be the reason for this unjust checkuserblock, as another Checkuser determined that this account is not related to any other and it is not being used for abusive purpose.--Brinkidiom (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The only thing that was clear from the previous CU report was that you were not technically related to that other user, not that you were not related to any user. In addition, another administrator has tagged you as being a sock puppet of Mangoeater1000. I am therefore going to revoke your talk page access and disable your e-mail. Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.