User talk:Kumarila

Welcome

Hello, Kumarila, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources needed

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Anushka Sharma, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hamarcinema.com is not a site with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy which is vitally important for potentially controversial content about a living person. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Anushka Sharma, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Kaif

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Katrina Kaif, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. You said- "she has said many times that she adopted title kaif because it was indian in origin and nothing more". But in an interview to Times Of India, Katrina admits that her father is Indian. I've re-added the info' by citing the TOI article, and that is all that matters in wikipedia. Read it thoroughly - http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-19/news-interviews/29787111_1_katrina-kaif-lows-happiness/2 . Please don't give bogus reasons to delete it. You had removed reliable sources to establish your POV. Next time, i'll have to place a warning template in your talk page.

"Religious Views" - Before you add/delete a "major sub-section/section/sensitive piece of info" in a wiki' page, you're supposed to discuss it in the corresponding article's talk page. Otherwise it leads to edit warring. There might be conflicting opinions such as "...worshipping at various religious places means secular religious views, & what else could it possibly mean?", etc. So your edit comment may or may not be right. "Prejudice to sourced factual content" is definitely confusing in such cases, and opinions may defer. If you are new to wikipedia, make sure you've gone through the editing policies, thoroughly. Try this source: http://www.katrina-kaif.co.in/articles/katrina-kaif-family.htm - The article specifically says "she has secular views". Although this doesn't look like a reliable source to me, it might be enough for cross checking with the rest. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Katrina Kaif, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

If the source(Times of India) doesn't mention her dad's name, you're only supposed to delete that and not the fact that he's indian. When a celebrity admits that her dad is indian, and if it is published by a reliable journal, there is no question of "controversy" in it. However, i've provided another ref'(The International Reporter) which mentions her father's name, and that Kat's an "ANGLO-INDIAN". You've just been giving blatant edit comments to establish your POV despite adequate explanations. Regarding her religious views, there is a source which exclusively says that "SHE'S SECULAR". If you have any questions regarding the source's reliability(coz you had mentioned that "it is the writer's opinion"), you're supposed to start a discussion the talk page, which you didn't, despite several requests. Without a discussion for arriving at consensus, in the article's talk page, you cannot blank that sub-section, as it has an inline citation. If you have nothing to hide, you would have agreed to a discussion in the talk page. By the way, i've reasons to believe that you may be using multiple accounts to tip off the balance in an edit war. I've reported it. In such cases, my repeated reverts don't count for edit warring. If you continue with your disruptive editing, i may have to request for arbitration. Hari7478 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Katrina Kaif, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You leave me no choice. Although her dad's name was mentioned in the second inline citation(The International reporter), you have been repeatedly making reverts by giving false ediot comments. It is clear that your edits are just based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you are uncomfortable with a specific source, i've told you several times to start a discussion in the article's talk page, to arrive at consensus. If you are new to wikipedia, you're supposed to learn the various editing, verifiability policies, & wiki' etiquette, before you start making edits. That might take several months. You seem to be a one tick pony, editing in fairly similar articles, in order to establish your POV. You brought this on yourself. I'm sorry. Hari7478 (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kumarila. You have new messages at Hari7478's talk page.
Message added Hari7478 (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Raj Thackeray

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Raj Thackeray, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WBRSin (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse the above views. Everyone using Wikipedia must follow the guidelines evolved after discussion over a period of time. --Bhadani (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Kaif issue

I have started a conversation at Talk:Katrina_Kaif#Two_versions_of_her_history. Can you and this other editor please discuss there? Just reverting each other is not helpful to the readers, and is agitating me as well. BollyJeff | talk 13:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Your addition to Mother Teresa has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. 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. Elizium23 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Narendra Modi without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Sitush (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Narendra Modi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Narendra Modi 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DMacks (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at 2002 Gujarat riots, you may be blocked from editing. You have clearly been here a while; you know damn well you cannot remove sourced material without discussion, when talk page discussion supports it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Will you read the freaking talk page message? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for breaking the Three Revert Rule at 2002 Gujarat riots, if you undo your most recent fourth revert, then perhaps the administrator reviewing the evidence will not block you.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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. the panda ₯’ 23:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

Please chime in on '2002 gujarat riot' talk page topic "Censoring violence against Hindus" & "Censoring right to question neutrality"Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]