User talk:Kzaroon95

November 2016

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Naagin (TV series). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diffs: [1][2] Critical content that you generate yourself has no place in an encyclopedia. Imagine for a moment of every person with an opinion commented in Wikipedia articles, what the result would be. Articles would be full of jumbled, biased rantings, a completely unacceptable result. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Naagin (TV series), you may be blocked from editing. Diffs: [3] As noted, the content you are submitting is inappropriate for inclusion. Your personal analyses and opinions and fact-finding, etc. do not belong in the article. This constitutes "original research" and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you want to include what known professional critics think of the series, you are free to to include that information, provided that you present the content from a neutral point of view, i.e. balancing that person's opinions with other critics' opinions, cite the opinions, provide quotations, etc. What you personally think or infer, or believe, should not be included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a discussion forum.

And, since you have an interest in television articles, please familiarize yourself with our Manual of Style for Television articles, where you will find nothing that encourages editors to write editorials about their viewing experience. If you submit the content again, I will interrupt your editing privileges. Feel free to open a discussion on the article's talk page if you wish or if you need further clarification. Note that new comments go at the bottom of the talk page, and if you write over another editor's comment as you did here on my talk page, your comment will be reverted. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Answering your question from my talk page

Re: this query on my talk page, we only care what reliable published sources (newspapers, magazines, books) think about anything. We don't care what random internet users like me or you have to say about any TV program, comic book, movie, politician, etc. We are not here to invent facts or to write down our observations or to critically analyze anything. We're here to summarize the facts of the television series and if we wish to present any critical analysis, that critical analysis must come from professional television critics, television historians, media analysts and the like. It is not our place to sit and watch the series and point out the things we personally found confusing or offensive or inconsistent or conflicting, etc. If you don't understand this, I don't know what to tell you other than to read WP:OR and MOS:TV#Things to avoid. As for your question about why some biographies have controversy sections, I don't think that WikiProject Biography typically cares for controversy sections, because they tend to place undue focus on negative situations, which creates problems with neutrality. Also, controversies tend to be important in the moment, but not important ten years down the road. Focusing on current events also creates problems with neutrality. Some editors tend to include these sections because they don't know any better. That said, when there are controversies surrounding a person, place or thing, we may only include that information if the content is attributed to reliable sources like newspapers, magazines and books. You are not a reliable source. I am not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. IMDb is not a reliable source. Does that make sense? And since you seem to think that this is an issue of bias, please be sure to read the comments that come in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistakes in naagin. These comments represent what other experienced editors think, based on their understanding of community rules. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Mistakes in naagin. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Diff: [4] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Semmendinger (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Naagin (TV series).
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Naagin (TV series) was changed by Kzaroon95 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.903919 on 2016-11-20T05:07:02+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism, as you did at Naagin (TV series). 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) 05:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

For: [5] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kzaroon95, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

bonadea contributions talk 21:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)