User talk:Username 2554

Talk: Sanjaya Malakar

Generally, it's not considered good Wikietiquette to remove talk page content like you did on the Malakar talk page. Please read Wikipedia:Talk pages. Talk pages tend to be permanent records, so even if something is completed, it's usually left on the site. You're new so you probably didn't know that. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaya

You seem to make a lot of edits to the Sanjaya Malakar page. Out of curiosity, are you a fan or do you just find it interesting? - hmwith talk 20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on Sanjaya Malakar‎

My edits were not vandalism. This article concerns an unsuccessful contestant on a TV talent show who has achieved no chart success. He is not Elton John or Paul McCartney. The article was far too long in its original form and needed editing to remove excessive material that was more suited to a fansite. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Grimhim 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have persisted in reinstating material that was cut from the Sanjaya Malakar article that is clearly WP:Fancruft. I should point out that any further reverts will put you in breach of the WP:3RR, which may result in you being blocked form editing Wikipedia. It is clear from your contributions that your sole activity at Wikipedia is adding progressively more detailed, more trivial information on this individual.

I had earlier referred this article to the Wikipedia:Cleanup section after tagging the article as content that resembles a fansite. My subsequent edits met the standards of the Cleanup section. You are persistently undoing this work without explanation on the talkpage, which constitutes an editwar. I'll reinstate the fansite tag until I can address this article again.Grimhim 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go again. Cutting extravagent detail from an overly long article is not vandalism. Vandalism, according to Wiki's own definition, is: "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

You seem to suffer from a proprietorial attitude of the Sanjaya Malakar article. The succession of tidy-ups that were carried out to the article after my last revert were obliterated by your clumsy revert a short time ago. You don't engage in discussion. You seem to have little respect for other editors on Wikipedia.Grimhim 02:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation warning for Sanjaya Malakar

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sanjaya Malakar. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

good faith edit revert - not vandalism - 01:49, 15 August 2007
good faith edit revert - not vandalism - 02:37, 15 August 2007
good faith edit revert - neither vandalism nor hacking - 18:57, 15 August 2007
good faith edit revert - not vandalism - 22:12, 15 August 2007

Please note that while your edits claim to be reverting vandalism at times, yet none of them qualify as reversions to obvious vandalism, nor do they seem to match other categories listed under 3RR Exceptions. Please think of this as a friendly warning, as future violations to the 3RR rule will likely result in your editing privileges being blocked --slakr 23:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]