User talk:Oldruff

Replaceable fair use File:Duddilla Sridhar Babu.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Duddilla Sridhar Babu.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Sitush that didn't seem very civil~~, so it has been removed.~~ Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Calling good faith-edits "vandalism" is inappropriate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't been removed, so I crossed out that part. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You're right, sorry. Thanks for watching! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPA

Hi, it is clear from your contribution history that you are a single-purpose account. Please review WP:OWN and note that if you were to spread yourself about a bit then you would probably get a better understanding of why so many of your contributions have been removed or substantially modified. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your keen observation. Yes I am a SPA but am letting you edit and others edit but that edit has to be meaningful. And your user page and talk page needs no explanation or description! Thanks. - Oldruff (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are as near as dammit clue-less and this is likely to be due to your SPA activity. Please, for instance, could you review WP:Citing sources and WP:RS. My talk page is great, isn't it? you can direct any complaints to WP:AN/S, as that is where most of them should go ;) Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sridhar Babu 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. Sitush (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking things on Wikipedia is a very basic thing and yet you are not understanding it. Please could you spend some time reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either self-revert this or look forward to a block for edit warring. You seem not to understand that competence is required to contribute here. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sridhar Babu 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. Oldruff (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Salvio, While this article about an Indian Politician from the Southern Part of India is India based however the edit warring with User Sitush was more based on what he deems right or what I deem right. My intent is not to stop anyone from editing that page but he has substantially removed most of my contributions - some of which is genuine and majority is not. I rest my case- you are the best judges spending more time on Wikipedia however the caution is about assumptions that only some people understand WP guidelines and others don't. But it is in the best interests of Wikipedia and creation of the Encyclopedia itself if experienced editors like Sitush don't engage in “wiki-lawyering,” simply spitting the Wiki-shorthand code for the policy violated (WP:RS) at others, with little attempt to explain why he has made an error, and no attempt to offer constructive ways in which a compromise solution might be reached. They tend to be unnecessarily hostile to newcomers, or “Biting the Newbies” in Wikipedia-speak

OldRuff 09:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

For your hard work on improving the article Sridhar Babu - Ninney (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User:Sitush, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. here goes your warning.. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 11:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please block me but do me a favor- don't remove the content I posted on both of your talk pages! You think am dying to contribute here ! ROFLMAO. I have a life dude and I lead it- not in the rickety, mangled and smelly domain where pests like you scurry around without letting other pests in ! Seriously dude get a life- Block me . Am still not back on my chair I fell off while laughing!

OldRuff 11:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks and harassment. 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. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have no intention of abusing or vandalizing anyone's page. It is upto you to ublock or block based on what I wrote. My intention is to provide meaningful contribution to Project Wikipedia. I regret any inconvenience caused due to abuse

Decline reason:

If you think what you've provided is meaningful, then this account is best left blocked. only (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.