User talk:Dharmadhyaksha

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

ANI[edit]

There is discussion involving you on WP:ANI. HERE. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  09:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Uttar Dakshin.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Uttar Dakshin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

cleanup by Auto-Format[edit]

Thank you for you edit to DDLJ, but I had to repair the link to 'FilmfareAwardBestFilm 1991-2010' which got broken after the edit. Please adjust your tool or usage to avoid this in the future. BollyJeff | talk 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: Oh! Thanks for pointing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

3rr[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. --Human3015Send WikiLove  07:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:CambridgeBayWeather, just for my clarity.... i removed content (E1), he reverted (E2), i reverted (E3), he reverted (E4), i reverted (E5), he reverted (E6), i reverted (E7), he reverted (E8). So which edit of mine is counted as violation of 3RR policy? I have never understood this counting system, as in which is to be counted and which not. Hence asking for clarification as am getting a first hand experience now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The block was not so much for a technical violation of the 3RR but the simple fact of edit warring, no matter how many reverts each of you had. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay! I wasn't gonna continue it further. But anyways.... Now while we are at it, can you still clarify my doubt on which is a 3RR? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Your third edit and his third edit. I suggest you disengage from this article. Let the AfD take its course. Till then, avoid interaction with the user as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
So its E5 for me and E6 for him? That's what am confused about whether its E5 for me or E7. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be E5 for you and E6 for Human3015. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay! Thanks for clarification User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Rsrikanth05. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Rsrikanth05: I will stay away from the article and the AfD. But someone specifically mentioned me in the AfD (i.e. "nominator") and hence I replied there. And yes, staying away from Human3015 is a good idea and I will do that for sure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The way I understand it, if you revert an edit, you are ahead. And, you will remain ahead at the end of 3RR. So it pays to go to the talk page. Never mind the WP:BRD which seems to say that the editor has to go to the talk page. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
In that case, mine should be E7 as E1 shouldn't be counted as "revert" at all. The first revert happened on the page with E2. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it depends on how the process starts. If you revert newly added content, you are starting the edit war and you lose. (Not that I like that interpretation!) If you delete some old content, you are doing an edit and the other editor starts the edit-war and loses. I generally go to the talk page after one-and--half cycle so I avoid getting into tricky situations. Whoever starts the talk page discussion is noble! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Point noted. Stop at 1.5. Face-smile.svg §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hero1983.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hero1983.jpg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You had a clean block log, but due to your ego you got blocked. Now whenever you will listen to the song Afghan Jalebi, you will remember your block. 112.79.35.110 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I stick to my stand. The song is not notable and I don't listen to such songs again. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the good words.talk page