User talk:GOOD morning

Excuse Me (MR. & MRS) Ravensfire, I think You are the same person who is doing double job as Ason27, Sorry if not. But when I do good editing.you are discouraging me. Ason27 edits are not same as me. He violates some pages. When I add some point he-she knowingly attacking it by his own fake things.Ason27 is definitely a Shriya Saran Fan and Revathi Fan. I edited the vandalism on fan excitement by Ason27 on the pages of Shriya Saran and Revathi.

Hi GOOD morning! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jyothika, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diff: [1] In this edit you changed a summary of critical response from "mixed" to "positive" but you didn't provide any explanation to justify the change, nor did you provide any reference. This looks a lot like you are adding your personal editorial to the article, which we should not be doing. Your change has been removed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this edit, the image you added resulted in a giant photo being displayed. Please see WP:EIS for formatting options. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Pulimurugan. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diffs: [2] The assertions you added are unsourced and it's unclear why you changed Mohanlal's name to Mohandas. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, re: these edits at Jyothika, there are a number of problems that your edits introduced.

1. A reference labeled "DOB Behindwoods" was intended to support the subject's birthdate. For no clear reason you moved that reference down three paragraphs.
2. Your edits introduce bizarre, unnecessary line breaks.
3. You have linked to numerous disambiguation pages instead of the specific articles you intended. Telugu, Vaali, Mozhi, Kushi, Vijay, Vikram, etc. This is just sloppy.
4. You've added content including award nominations without providing references.
5. You've needlessly added a warning to another editor in the article. If you have a problem with that editor's contributions, open a discussion on their talk page, or if you want to discuss improvements to the article open a discussion at Talk:Jyothika.

All in all, your changes introduced a pretty significant mess. I'm reverting the article to a previous version. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow editor, I respect you and your effort on Jyothika's article. I understand that you are a fan of her, but you must understand too, this is wikipedia, where the basic rule is to give a citation along with your entry. A recent visit to the page, I discovered that its all messed up. Why do you want to give out wrong info along with UNRELATED SOURCES? If you like to start a fan page, go ahead but not on the wikipedia. Finally, dont call me as a fake user, you have no idea how much time and energy that I have invested in editing the articles. Thank you and please stop making more vandalism on Jyothika's article, you only making it worst. However please dont stop editing the articles but with realiable sources. Thank you again. Sorry if my tone is harsh. (Ason27 (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cinema Express Awards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Madhavan and Vaali. 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) 09:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked the next time you make a controversial edit at Jyothika such as this one, dated 12:01 on 19 April unless you have previously got consensus for it on the talk page. You have already been warned for your edits on this article by an administrator, User:Cyphoidbomb, in a message above. Calling User:Ason27 a 'fake editor' violates our policy on personal attacks. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GOOD morning. You have new messages at Talk:Jyothika#Fake_sources.
Message added 15:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit-warring is not tolerable at Wikipedia. Ason27 has opened a discussion on the Jyothika talk page and you need to participate in that discussion if you wish to achieve consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Don't wish to have a talk with Ason27 Cyphoidbomb I respect you[reply]

Re: these:

1. Please don't post the same message three times, and let's please keep this discussion in one place, your talk page, so that we don't have to jump back and forth between conversations.
2. Comment on content, not on the contributor. I don't care whether you think the other editor is a Jyothika-hater or not. We don't lob personal attacks on other users, and calling them a "hater" and other petulant names simply is not constructive, and only distracts from the purpose of this collaborative project: building an encyclopedia. Speculating as to their motivations is unconstructive.
3. If you have a specific complaint about changes Ason27 has made, go to Talk:Jyothika#Fake sources and participate in the discussion. Say, "Ason27, I don't think you should have removed ____ because the content can be found in ___ reference" or whatever your objections are.

This ridiculous disagreement has already spanned four days and not one of you has been able to articulate what your specific concerns are. My time is being wasted, and if I start to get the sense that you are incapable of constructive discussion or editing competently, I will have no choice but to interrupt your editing privileges to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jyothika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mozhi. 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) 10:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a reason why you left the same comment twice on Ason27's talk page? You should remove whichever one was the mistake. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, re: these, please don't reorder cast as you did without providing a clear explanation in an edit summary. This tends to look like you are entertaining your personal preferences (ex: "I like this actor better, so I'll move him up." or "I think this actress has more seniority in the industry") rather than adhering to community guidelines like Template:Infobox film and WP:FILMCAST, which is what we should be doing. Since you provided no explanation via an edit summary, there's no way to comprehend what your rationale is. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, your silent reordering of cast lists is becoming a bit tiresome. Please don't reorder cast without explaining how it is consistent with established guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Kalaimamani

added a link pointing to Vikram

Keerthy Suresh

added a link pointing to Vikram

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, the next time you reorder cast without providing a reason that is consistent with Template:Infobox film instruction or WP:FILMCAST instructions, your editing privileges will be interrupted. These sections don't exist for editors to reorder them per their personal whims and preferences. You need to explain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And also consider a final warning for this. If I see you adding the non-free image in the cast section again, I will report you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspite of warning you are continuously adding the non-free image to the articles. I am reporting you for disrptive editing. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you restore this ridiculous POV fluff? Please note that I expect an answer, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me How to undid my edits. Some one attacking my edits by doing undid to my contributions GOOD morning (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to first answer my question above about why you restored this garbage (specifically the "she remains the best among Remakes of the movie" nonsense) to Kushi (2000 film), an article that you'd theoretically never edited before. After we get that out of the way, we can talk about why you keep submitting unsourced content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second Cyphoidbomb's comments, plus add a few more. First, you MUST include good, reliable sources that directly support the edits you make. All of them. Please read the Identifying Reliable Sources page for help on that. Note that blogs, self-published sites, tweets and fan pages aren't reliable sources. Second, your edits really look like you are promoting one person (Jyothika) over everything else by re-ordering cast lists against our standards, adding pictures of her and only her in places where it doesn't belong and the general tone is anything but what you'd find in an encyclopedia. This isn't a fan-site dedicated to her. Stop writing like it is. Understand that when others revert your changes and explain why, you are expected to either discuss it on the article talk page or fix the issues. You are doing neither. Please think on how you contribute to Wikipedia. We always want editors to remain that help improve articles, but when concerns about their editing style are ignored, they can become a detriment to the project. Ravensfire (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jyothika. Diff: [3] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

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.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful using non-free images, as you did here. Use of that image on that page clearly fails the non-free content criteria. Please do not re-add that image. The WP:NFCCP page has more information that you may find helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Telugu. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. STOP addin non-free images to articles where they are not needed. Wikipedia ONLY uses non-free images when absolutely necessary. Film posters are allowed ONLY on the article on the film. Your continued use is considered disruptive and will end up with you being blocked again. You NEED to start listening to the advice people are giving you, especially when you ask for it. Continued edit-warring as you try to shove your preferred version of an article over objections from others without discussion will only end up with you being blocked for longer periods. Ravensfire (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a final warning, please note that you can be blocked for edit-warring, even if you don't revert more than 3 times per 24 hour period. Continued editing / reverting back to you preferred version without discussion, despite objections from others, is considered edit-warring. You've been blocked once for this and you've continued down that path since you returned from that block. The history here clearly shows that pattern, especially given the IP address user is clearly you not logged in. You MUST start using the article talk page to discuss your changes and NOT make them in the article until consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Telugu. Stop adding non-free images to articles where they should not be used. You've been left multiple messages on your talk page and still continue to revert to your version without discussion. If you continue, I will bring this up with the ANI board and seek to have you blocked from editing. Ravensfire (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly obvious that the person who made these changes and the person who made these changes are the same person, i.e. you. And it's also clear, based on the fact that you refused to answer this question, that you are deliberately editing while logged out to circumvent scrutiny. If you continue to do this after your block expires, your next block will be for far longer. When your block expires, I strongly advise you to start discussing your changes with other editors instead of edit-warring. If you find that your English skills are a detriment to your ability to communicate here, you should consider editing at a Wikipedia in your native language instead, since communication is crucial at Wikipedia. Note also that Wikipedia is not a forum for fans or paid editors to promote article subjects or to puff them up, so if that stuff continues after your block expiration, you will again very likely wind up blocked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit-warring on multiple articles still, using both this account and IP's when you are not logged in. This includes when you were blocked. You MUST start discussing changes on the article talk pages when others revert you edits - see WP:BRD. If you continue, I will report you to the edit-war noticeboard and you will probably be blocked again. Wikipedia works on a consensus model, you need to discuss and get agreement when your edits are disputed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse Me (MR. & MRS) Ravensfire, I think You are the same person who is doing double job as Ason27, Sorry if not. But when I do good editing.you are discouraging me. Ason27 edits are not same as me. He violates some pages. When I add some point he-she knowingly attacking it by his own fake things.

I can't help what you think, but you are incorrect about thinking Ason27 and I are the same editor. Some of your edits are good, but others aren't and you don't seem to handle other disagreeing with your preferred version very well. That's going to happen on Wikipedia, and you MUST learn to handle it when it happens. You need to use the article talk page to discuss edits others disagree with. If you don't, you will end up blocked. The next time you are blocked, when you use an IP to evade it, I will ask an admin to block that IP as well. Last time I didn't, just reverted your changes. See WP:BLOCKEVASION - that what you were doing. You need to stop the garbage accusations, start talking on the article talk pages and work collaboratively. Ravensfire (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it quite humorous you are accusing someone of being a fan of someone. You do realize that your edits related to Jyothika are exceptionally POV? Need an example? See this edit where you used her image to highlight the list. Except that's not the person with the most awards, who logically should be the person to highlight. Not the second place person. Yes, that's your POV showing through clearly. Don't worry, I'll fix that for you though. And to help you out, I created a discussion on the article talk page which you should have done days ago when you were first reverted. See the dispute resolution page for further steps in handling a dispute.Ravensfire (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravensfire and Ason are not the same person. GOOD Morning, your edits are persistently problematic. Stop wasting time commenting on other editors and focus on bringing your edits up to basic standards. Your promotion of Jyothika is going to get you blocked indefinitely. You should take advice from Ravensfire. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say, just quoting Stephen R. Covey here; Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply. Do you even understand this GOOD morning, with your disruptive edits (problematic edits) on the articles that I care for, you are making yourself a troublesome person. Thats all and keep doing your garbage work. Small advice here, please learn to undertsand and communicate in proper english, if you have problem in that, do not bother to edit the wikipedia which is fine without your edits (presence)! Accusing me as a fake editor earlier and now you are saying me and Ravensfire are the same person?! Great keep watching the soap operas, as you could be more creative than that! If you keep doing the same thing again, I will report you to the edit-war noticeboard. ♠ Ason27 (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm fan of Shriya Saran, Simran, Revathi and so on (I wish not to reveal to you as you will vandalise those articles as well). However, I have never used any sort of promotional activity in wikipedia just like you doing. I edit their page WITH REALIABLE SOURCES, DECENT GRAMMER, WRITES IN ENGLISH (NOT WITH OME BROKEN GRAMMER), NEVER ATTACKS OTHER WIKIPEDIANS AND FOLLOW THE WIKI GUIDELINE OF EDITING THOSE ARTICLES! There is difference between editing wiki and editing fan page, whatever that you think you are doing in wikipedia is definitely not in neutral way, more like aggressive fan promoting aggressively. In fact you have so much problem with my edits, that you went to the Revathi's films' wikipedia articles and you begin to vandalise them! The evidence is your contribution, you can check that mate. If you dont stop making such problematic edits, you will be definitely blocked! And trust me I dont have to do anything, as others will take care of it. ♠ Ason27 (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor Ason27,

You only support your fans edits. Why 2 images for Revathi's Wikipedia. You have used a lots of promotional activity in wikipedia without any reference like CineMAA Award Nomination for Shriya Saran.You always follows me and attacking me. Why this to me. Please do your edits. You adding some fake informations in Shriya Saran's article by your Fan madness towards her. You are editing your fan page. That means you vandalise them .Why there is Detailing of awards if there is another page to describe it in Revathi's Awards page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOOD morning (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, new comments go at the bottom of discussions, and please sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~. This will add a signature and date to your post (which is required) like this --> Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:GOOD_morning reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: ). Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Lack of competence, edit warring, abuse of multiple accounts, and making incorrect sock charges. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. This is now your third block since June 1 and there is no indication that you learn from experience or understand our policies. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]