User talk:CyberBrinda

Edit summary

You have made several edits to Rewati Chetri that only show "Tags: Mobile edit. It is important to leave an edit summary. Many editors use these to determine if they need to look closer at an edit. Thanks, Otr500 (talk)

• Hello, You have made the above mentioned type edits on another article Miss Earth India. On Rewati Chetri they are incremental edits that creates disruption, by actually reverting maintenance procedures. Leaving no edit summary, especially when maintenance edits were performed with reasoning on the talk page, and these types of edits are reversed, makes it appear to be a form of gaming or vandalism, and means extra work to click on all the links to see what is actually going on or seeking someone to rollback all the edits and start over, short of an editor self-reverting. One of the "reverts" added back a link I took out because it includes the identical information, from the same source, so is redundant at best, just showing more references than there actually are.

I always assume good faith, unless it is obvious that is not the case, and this is no exception, so I am sending this in hopes there will not have to be something like Admin reporting.

You are fairly new to Wikipedia, or I might take a more serious stance, but please understand that previous actions, warnings including being mildly chastised twice for Disruptive editing, and the potential for being saddled as a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, not here to build an encyclopedia, can lead to permanent sanctions.

• NOTE: Please see the template "User:JamesBWatson/Uw-spam1" for one example of warnings and reasoning.

Don't get me wrong: A "thank you" is nice but if there is no talk page discussion or edit summary, there is no way to gage anything, or determine if any further action is required. Not using the edit summary could be accidental.

• NOTE: (from "Help:Edit summary); "To avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, you can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of your user preferences...". You have been using edit summaries at around 36% for major edits but in the last 150 edits that has dropped to 21%.

The non-summarized incremental edits, took out dead link tags, that are essential to improving Wikipedia, and added back the vague advertising "External link" to indiatimes.com, that has no direct link to the subject. These types of links, especially when added to other articles when there is no relevance, is plain advertising. If you would like inclusion of this link then point it to the subject for relevance otherwise it is just spam for pageants.

When a link is clicked on like the last one currently listed as #19 and it leads to a web page "THE GREAT PAGEANT COMMUNITY" with "Nothing Found; Apologies, but no results were found for your request. Perhaps searching will help you to find a related content.", it is a dead link. We mark dead links for maintenance. I did not remove the link although because this is a BLP there is ample justification, and might be repairable, but the tag was edited out, that is actually a revert.

Here is a problem I am hoping to solve: I am sending a "non-formal" admonishment, in further hopes to achieve progress not only concerning editing but article content. Sometimes I get good results and sometimes I get heartaches. As an editor you can champion articles, and I am all for this, but it is stipulated not only in the policies and guidelines but by WMF directives to edit (especially on BLP's) with a neutral point of view. This also prevents any possible assertion of conflict of interest, unless the editor is an unlisted employee, or can even be considered tendentious editing.

I would also like to inform you that editing many articles especially in one area, that are very poorly sourced to begin with, or sourced with references in the "External links" only (which means the article actually has no references), and not supplying references to such edits, is advancing original research.

I hope that my endeavors are productive, especially if you are are here to build an encyclopedia, so you might try reading Wikipedia:Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset, that includes Creating and editing articles, Getting along with other editors, and Working efficiently together (#1). Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aditi Arya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tollywood. 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) 09:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Final warning

You haven't bothered to respond to the ANI discussion and you don't seem to have any regard to our policies etc, just continue blaming others for everything. This disruption has gone on long enough, along with your advertorials. Any further disruption of any kind will result in your editing privileges withdrawn completely. —SpacemanSpiff 03:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What Am I supposed to comment in the ANI discussion. Am I supposed to beg that I am not sockpuppeting. And even I don't know what kind of advertorials I have done and what disruption I have done lately. And can you show me where am I blaming others for everything.CyberBrinda comment 08:44, 1October 2016 (UTC)

This is a disruption you made five days ago. That's recent. You deleted my query about that with no explanation, so once again, you seem oblivious that this is a community editing project, and community editing requires communication. In this edit you restore a flag to the infobox even though in my edit immediately prior I removed the flag with a clear link to community consensus on the matter. Did you read the guideline? Did you understand it? Did you disagree with it? Did you open a discussion for a local exception? Did you have some valid reason for contravening community consensus? Who knows? You never talk. You need to demonstrate to ANI that you're competent to edit here at the very least, and since you keep editing contrary to community consensus, you're going to need a very strong argument for why you keep doing so, since your changes are indistinguishable from trolling and vandalism. Surely you don't think that you can keep making these sub-standard edits, never bother to discuss them, and that somehow the ANI case is going to be resolved in your favor? Patently ridiculous. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
::This is a disruption you made five days ago. This was made more than 11 days ago not 5. & it must have been deleted by mistake ok. And about adding the flag issue, There is no harm in adding flagicon for the "location" of a pageant and i am not adding a flag in a biography of a person. You cane see that every article of a major pageant will has a flagicon in location.[1][2][3] I don't know how by just adding it for the location of a pageant can violate any rules. & the editor called "SpacemanSpiff" is implying that I am advertising something. If a person writes articles only in the field of Neurology in Wikipedia, than is he advertising it?...CyberBrinda comment 09:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You apparently still haven't read WP:INFOBOXFLAG. The first sentence: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Your counter-argument that the flags appear in other articles is meaningless. They should be removed from the other articles, unless a local consensus (i.e. a Manual of Style for pageant articles) provides for their inclusion. The entire reason why we have guidelines is to promote consistency across articles. When one person makes a change that is inconsistent with the guidelines, that creates a wave of problems across multiple articles. If it was wrong at Miss Australia and you copied it, it's still wrong, only now it's wrong in more places. In this case, you are forcibly asserting formatting that is not consistent with community preferences. Don't say that there's no harm, because there is. Every mistake (or in your case, deliberate reintroduction) wastes other editors' time to fix. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing, inability to edit collaboratively or communicate with others, unwillingness to respond to feedback or adhere to policies and guidelines despite being requested to do so.. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 04:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #16629 was submitted on Oct 01, 2016 05:40:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note to unblock reviewer: Please see ANI discussion and the related links there. —SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

வணக்கம், Spaceman, I am not a 'sockpuppet' as some editors are discussing in the ANI. Based on a few edits which are similar to other editors, I am sockpuppeting?

• As they have discussed that I used some blogs for references, I didn't know that we shouldn't do that, as I was new to Wikipedia. I have never used blogs as references from then. And another user Orts. says that they marked a "dead link" and I removed it without fixing it in Rewati Chetri. and the "External links" of the article Rewati Chetri did not meet Wikipedia's policies. I myself have fixed the issues marked by them in the article & if you want you can check yourself, though I may not have been very corporative in communicating with the editor. But I have noted the issues pointed out & I fixed it.
• you blocked me as I reverted the edit done by "Cyphoidbomb" , I have explained and I have replied to his comment. Using flagicons for identifying a location does not violate any rules. I have not used flagicons in a biography a person. That was not a valid reason to block.... I request you to please reconsider this one time. CyberBrinda comment 12:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• You've had many many chances and have continued to waste everyone's time here. I'm not going to unblock you as I don't find these statements you make to be of any value. However, another admin will do the unblock review and make that decision, not me. —SpacemanSpiff 07:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I promise to collaborate , discuss & communicate with other editors. I request you to unblock me as I promise to make useful contributions to Wikipedia in the future, Thank you

Decline reason:

The edit summaries here and here show you have already broken your "promise to collaborate , discuss & communicate with other editors" within minutes of making it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for I'm removing your talk page access as you're now calling people "rabid dogs" in your edit summaries here.. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  —SpacemanSpiff 08:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #16631 was submitted on Oct 01, 2016 08:58:23. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #16634 was submitted on Oct 02, 2016 05:36:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CyberBrinda. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #17984 was submitted on Apr 08, 2017 06:53:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Claire Elizabeth Parker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claire Elizabeth Parker 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/Claire Elizabeth Parker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

PK650 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)