User talk:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody

Hello, Nobody is perfect and i am nobody, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction

5 The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

Tips

How to write a great article

Simplified Manual of Style

Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning) 03:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Malayalam cinema, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yintan 13:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a problem with a sentence in a section, that's no reason to delete the entire section. Especially if it's sourced. Just edit the sentence. Cheers, Yintan 13:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Daivathinte Swantham Cleetus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing, including edit warring at Daivathinte Swantham Cleetus (with IP) and other articles, and promotional commentary. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Boss (2013 Hindi film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please don't push your POV.Sohambanerjee1998 13:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Sohambanerjee1998 13:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello, I'm TheRedPenOfDoom. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Bruce_Rauner, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

restoring oogles of unsourced content as you are doing [1] is not allowed. YOU need to provide reliable sources to support the claims before you restore content. (And you should also realize that returning from a block for disruptive behavior to tear back into committing disruptive behavior will only increase the speed that the next block comes along with its length. Please revert yourself and do not continue to edit war. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and you may not remove clean up banners as you did in this edit unless you (or someone else ) has actually addressed the issue the clean up banners identify. Ãnd Wikipedia had definite descriptors of what is qualified as WP:VANDALISM and calling edits which are actually supported by policy "vandalism" doesnt make them vandalism nor provide justification for you to make edits counter to policy.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, i am not responsible for bringing every filmography and article to compliance with the policies. but YOU are responsible for following the policies when YOU make an edit and when YOUR edits have been shown to be out of compliance with policy. Either provide sources to support the content YOU have added or remove the content until you are able to provide sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please explain to me which part of this edit is actually supported by WP:MOSTABLES? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may make the argument for inclusion of tables, but you have not provided a reason for including unsourced commentary and removal of tags which is what your edits are actually doing. You need to join the discussion on the talk page at the least or provide inline citations for each piece of trivia you add. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You may NOT continue edit warring to include unsourced content and hide it with misleading edit summaries claiming that MOS tables allows you to do so. Make your case. You need to respond on the talk page to justify your actions, see Talk:Mammootty_filmography#additional_non_related_and_unsourced_ and Talk:Kunchacko_Boban_filmography#unsourced trivia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, in case you missed it, the edits were not vandalism. Be more careful what you call "vandalism" in the future and make sure that it actually qualifies as vandalism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain why you have inserted additional unsourced content and you have removed the banner identifying the article as not having any sources without actually adding any sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Thompson article

There was absolutely no point whatsoever in reverting that edit (which fixed a spelling error - the last time I checked, Emma's last name wasn't Thopmson). Care to explain why you decided to do so? Cotillards (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Your recent editing history at Mammootty filmography 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. Use the talk page to discuss it, don't go reverting things and calling it vandalism. If you carry on like this you'll be blocked. Ged UK 11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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.

TheRedPenOfDoom has opened a talk page discussion, please comment there. Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Mammootty filmography. 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. Ged UK 14:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being warned for warring on two separate articles, and then carrying on anyway shows a worrying disregard for the community you're editing in. Ged UK 14:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ramesh Nambiar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ramesh Nambiar 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/Ramesh Nambiar 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. VagaboundWind (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mega superstar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mega superstar 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/Mega superstar 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. VagaboundWind (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]