User talk:Iluvumerijaan

Welcome!

Hello, Iluvumerijaan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to The Wolverine (film) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Wolverine (film) was changed by Iluvumerijaan (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.886309 on 2013-11-25T17:38:08+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmins

Please stop adding unsourced material. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Dallas Morning News. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Interracial marriage in the United States. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Interracial marriage in the United States, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to 18 Vayasu

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Next time use a descriptive Edit summary or try to discuss on talk first. Soham 17:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

When editing articles, before saving, please use the edit summary feature to describe the change that you have made. Thank you. — Scott • talk 11:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Vaimānika Shāstra‎. Including adding material to a quotation that wasn't in the original quotation and changing text to mean the opposite without any explanation. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally an edit summary, but misleading

At 24 (Indian TV series) you removed content with an edit summary stating "removed content without references" - true of one sentence, but the rest was sourced. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Iluvumerijaan, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Odzun has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Baahubali 2: The Conclusion. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diff: [1] You have a history of unsourced edits dating back 4 years. If you submit any more unsourced content, you'll be due for another block. We can't have unsourced content constantly added by editors. And re: this, I'm dying to know how you figure boxofficecollectionreport.com is a valid source in any way. Is your sole criterion for inclusion that a website just exists? Does it occur to you that anyone with a pulse can create a website and print whatever they want? We only care what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about anything. If you can't tell me what sage, responsible, experienced journalists are in charge of that site, then you've no business including it as a reference. Please quickly familiarise yourself with our reliable sourcing guidelines and also become familiar with WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources, please, so that you have a better understanding of what sort of sites are and are not generally considered reliable for Indian film articles. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Dangal (film). --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hi there re: this and this, first of all, I categorically reject your baseless hyperbolic accusation that I have "incessant hatred against all things remotely Hindu". Let's see some substantiation of that if you think that's actually an issue motivating my decisions. Naturally that would be absurd, since my response was a very standard one: If you want to see changes to the article, bring references" and "we don't need to frantically update box office figures". Also I have no idea how you consider Baahubali 2 to be "remotely Hindu". (Don't really care, either.) You might find it more fruitful to stick to the discussion topic instead of making personal attacks. Actually, that's pretty much required by policy. Comment on content, not on contributor. "South Asian Muslim" was a nice detail to pull out of thin air, by the way. It's amazing how one's mind can fabricate their own bogeyman. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actions speak louder than word, or here your edits against other users. Hidden jihad is a common form of violence used by Muslims against non Muslims. It shows in the history of your edits. Guess we are not as fool as you believe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvumerijaan (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure bullshit. You won't find any edits of mine that experienced Wikipedians would consider to be "anti-Hindu". If you have a specific complaint, raise it and bring "diffs", otherwise, don't waste my time with your nonsensical trolling. Based on the block I see you've attracted to yourself, you'll have the next 72 hours to work on researching your "case". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This block is for both the personal attacks and the continued failure to source your material despite warnings. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits. You made changes at Anandpal Singh with no explanation, if you delete content as you did here [2], here [3] and here [4] or change facts, as you did here [5], please use an accurate edit summery and, where appropriate, cite a reliable source. I also think this edit [6], along with your pattern of deleting sourced content may violate WP:NPOV. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at The Washington Times. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Amortias (T)(C) 17:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Iluvumerijaan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]