User talk:Anjaan333

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 96 hours for editwarring, as you did at Drishyam. 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. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anjaan - please discuss changes you wish to make to articles on their talk pages instead of just editwarring as you have been. Editwarring isn't okay, even when you think you are right. You've already been blocked twice for this; I just blocked you for an additional 96 hours. Further blocks will be much longer. If you want to stick around and edit Wikipedia, please, please, please, discuss changes on talkpages and quit editwarring. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaan: please do not remove a currently active block notice. Although users are allowed to remove most things from their userpages as they feel fit, they are not permitted to remove messages regarding active sanctions, like blocks. I have left the rest of the comments you removed removed, but have restored this section. Please do not remove it again. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anjaan: you're welcome to appeal my block, but policy says that users are not allowed to remove notices about blocks while they are still blocked. Please either appeal the block or just leave the notice in place until the block is over (when you may then remove it.) Editwarring over a block notice that you received for editwarring isn't the best path to take in a situation like this.Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another ANI report

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continuing to make the same controversial edits you've been making without discussion, you should either demonstrate a willingness and ability to discuss your objections on the various articles' talk pages, or you should be willing and able to discuss your edits at the Administrators Noticeboard. Failing to participate in the "Discussion" aspect of Bold, Revert, Discuss (BRD) is almost guaranteed to get you indefinitely blocked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Film Award and National Film Awards (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) 08:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

"sourcing" can only account for a minor portion of the changes you did. You have reinserted MASSIVE amounts of other inappropriate content such as the inappropriate use of WP:INDICSCRIPT, restoring a completely inappropriate batch of external links

YOU NEED TO DISCUSS AND GAIN CONSENSUS when you have been revert by multiple editors.

Your edit warring against such consensus WILL GET YOU BLOCKED. Particularly when you do not respond or make any comments on talk pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anjaan333 reported by User:Cyphoidbomb (Result: ). Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of ten days for edit warring, as you did at Drishyam. 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) 16:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Mealwaysrockz007 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]