User talk:86.245.0.117

January 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rajasekhar (actor), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Mahima Nambiar. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2019 (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 without adequate explanation, as you did at Anjali (actress), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Sivakarthikeyan. Dl2000 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Srikanth (Tamil actor). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diffs: [1] Please stop using inappropriate, subjective labels like "blockbuster", "super hit", "failure", "flop", "disaster" or any of that. These are not appropriate tone for a neutral encyclopedia. This stuff belongs in trade rags and blog posts. Phrasing like "highly positive" is also meaningless, because it's unclear whether that means that one critic passed-out because he was so overwhelmed with amazement, or if 80% of critics simply said, "it's good." Also, we do not add our own analyses or opinions. Any attempt to summarise an opinion must be directly attributed to a specific voice, which means you have to bring a reference that says "the film performed well, financially. Lastly, when you take quotes from other sources, like "Lie offers some out-of-the-box antics..." you must present those quotes as quotations. That means you have to wrap them in quotation marks. This is a basic rule. Don't submit any more improperly formatted quotations again, please. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Deva (1995 film). Dl2000 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at M. Sasikumar. Dl2000 (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Bharath (actor). S0091 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2019

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of ~~1 month~~ 6 weeks for competency concerns based on a history of sloppy edits, lack of English comprehension, addition of puffery and personal evaluations, poor referencing, etc.

Looking through some of your recent edits, you seem to have little actual idea of what you are doing.

Here you don't seem to have a great grasp of English grammar, nor do you seem to understand what kinds of references are suitable for inclusion. Newsbugz.com? Really? You also removed legitimate article formatting templates from the top of the page without explanation or reason.
Here you sloppily butchered the infobox template, then added a bunch of puffery about how "popular" the guy is. This contravenes WP:NPOV. You're also using poor references again, and it's unclear who gave him the "Best Music Director" award, so there's no way for readers to determine whether it is a legitimate award or just some crap that came from an award mill.
Here you removed a puffery cleanup template even though you added puffery. You obviously don't seem to understand what the problem is if you both commit the problem and remove indications that the problem needs to be cleaned up. That causes me to question both your competence and your integrity.
Here you add the bizarre statement "Ever since he has never looked back and kept on entertaining the Tamil audience with his music." I can only assume that's a copyright violation, probably lifted from here. What is clear is that you didn't write it, and it's not proper tone for an encyclopedia.
Here more grammar and syntax issues. What is "filmy"? Do you mean "film"? Or are you using slang, which you should not be doing in an encyclopedia?
Here you have trouble pasting a reference, such that you had to undo your edit. You also miscapitalised almost every word in the |occupation= parameter. Are you familiar with English rules about capitalisation?
Here is a totally sloppy addition of "BIOGRAPHYAarthi" with more poor sourcing.
Here is more poor sourcing.
Here is an unsourced release date for a future event, contravening WP:CRYSTAL.

Now just to put things into perspective, many of these problematic changes are mistakes you made today. In just one day. These are some of the reasons why I fear you lack the ability to edit here constructively. Nobody has time to follow you around and clean up after your mistakes.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

I've updated your block to 6 weeks because of your attempts to evade your block here. You're not helping the project, you're harming it, and if you keep evading your blocks, any user can revert any of your changes without regard for whether the change was constructive or not. And admins have buttons that can revert all of your edits super-fast. That will be a lot of wasted time on your part. If you think you should be unblocked, you can request an unblock, but you'd better be able to convince admins that you understand every single thing that you did wrong in the above edits, as well as provide a coherent argument for why you should be unblocked. Until then, maybe you should edit at a Wikipedia in your native tongue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.