User talk:WikiBriefed

hi guys. some editors are such a headache. sigh!!!

WikiBriefed, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi WikiBriefed! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Dilwale1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Dilwale1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Arjann (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dilwale1.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dilwale1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dilwale1.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dilwale1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dilwale2.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dilwale2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Fan (film). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOI bias[edit]

Looking at your recent edits, it appears that you have a bias for BOI soures. Please note that "most reliable source" doesn't mean "top priority sources", and any other reliable sources will be used if they verify the content appropiately and are reliable. --TL22 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boxofficeindia[edit]

I agree with you that BoxofficeIndia is reliable website. You are also correct that current worldwide collection of a newly released movie won't be same as final worldwide collections. But users can update the latest collection according to the source.

There are other sources for boxoffice as business related newspapers as

The Economic Times which publishes articles as this.

The Financial Express which belongs to the The Indian Express group. They also report about boxoffice related news.

International Business Times box office related.

I am not so sure about Koimoi, but its not completely unreliable. Galaxy Kid (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 18:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to 3 Idiots ‎, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 220 of ^Borg 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm D'SuperHero. Your recent edit to the page Fan (film) appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Although your summary included a hostile comment, first get the source to prove and work with Wikipedia members. D'SuperHero (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. I have reported you on AIV. D'SuperHero (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC) D'SuperHero (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

I see that after you were told that attempting to restrict sources to Box Office India was not acceptable, and after your attention was drawn to a discussion of your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you have continued not only to replace other sources with that source, but also to post messages telling other editors that they are not to use other sources. What is more, you have repeatedly claimed that this is a decision of "the community", although in fact it is purely your own opinion. Misrepresenting your personal opinion as some sort of "community" policy is totally unacceptable. I also see that you have used edit summaries which attack other editors. If you continue in the same way you will be blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Re: [1] Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, including edit-warring and personal attacks, continuing despite warnings. 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 appeal this block 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Fan (film). Thank you. i.e. this edit summary Dl2000 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit summaries[edit]

Hi, please chill with the shouty, histrionic edit summaries. If you can't discuss and explain things in a normal, civilized tone, you're not going to do well here. Cartoonish conspiracy rants like this and emotionally fueled summaries like this are not the way to ingratiate yourself with the community. Lastly, be sure to familiarize yourself with WP:MINOR. Only cosmetic changes like spelling fixes, punctuation fixes, and adding wikilinks should be marked as minor. These are not minor edits: [2][3][4]. And why would you remove valid references from an article? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you hate SRK? Tell me that first Sir. Fine I got minor thingy. Regarding those links, DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO CHECK IF THEY WORK OR NOT or you have this bad abit of spewing venom on me and going to the pages that I visit and finding faults with everything I do. Just tell me you a SRK hater only or a Sallu fan also?? WikiBriefed (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is your obligation to explain your edits. If the links didn't work, the obligation was yours to explain why. The purpose of the edit summary field is to explain edits, not to rant. 2) I will not dignify your irrational SRK "hater" nonsense with a response. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Even when it's so obvious? Fine. I hope you yourself know in your head and heart that you are a massive SRK troll. Messing with all SRK pages, Reducing bo figures of his movies, spewing venom for me all over Wiki and to my shock Horror! NOT you followed my contributions to the Screen Awards Best actress popular choice which I edited just now. Man who are we kidding here? Accept you are a diehard hater of SRK. BTW I also asked if you are a Sallu Bhaijaan stan or not. Congrats on the failure of PRDP if you are a Sallu fan :) ;) STOP your propaganda on getting me blocked form here and ruining SRK related pages. Did you see me mess with your Salman pages??? Or do you want me to mess with them?? Relax I wont coz I dont hate Salman or AAmir whoever stan you are. And I am not so full of shit like you. WikiBriefed (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're always welcome to dig through my 66,000 public edits to substantiate your ludicrous assertions and to seek remedy at ANI, but please be sure to pick up some fresh mustard for when that boomerang flies back in your mouth. I followed up on those other articles because you were a problematic editor who is continuing the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that got you blocked to begin with, and any editor worth their salt would be scrutinizing your contributions. And again, the rest of your delusional nonsense is beneath comment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the reverts at the archive[edit]

WikiBriefed, I think you misunderstand. Cyphoidbomb reverted your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906 because you were editing an archive of a discussion from November 2015. Please don't edit archives; they're supposed to be a record of what happened in the past, they're not live discussions. I'm going to remove your archive edit again; please don't revert me.

The confusion here was partly my mistake. Bishonen is correct, I reverted the above edit because archives shouldn't be used for new comments because the discussion is over by that point. I did however, mistakenly click the wrong rollback link before all the links had fully loaded. The rollback link I clicked does not automatically prompt for an explanation. 99.7% of my edits typically include edit summaries. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't edit as rudely as this anywhere on Wikipedia, or you will soon be blocked again. I see you attacking Cyphoidbomb just above on this page in a very impolite fashion. I'll block you myself if you don't speak in a civil manner going forward. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Warning[edit]

Wikipedia expects everybody to speak civilly to others. To call other users "fanatics" or "haters", as you did here, and in these edit summaries, is considered extremely rude. It violates the Assume good faith principle. And don't tell people with different opinions from you to "stay away" from certain pages either, as you did here; that violates a whole bunch of principles. I urge you to read the No personal attacks and Ownership of content policies before you edit again. Also, the invective and hostility here ("massive SRK troll", etc) is simply ridiculous. Don't talk like that again, to anybody. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Eid[edit]

Articles require specific dates. Since nobody has yet bothered to submit a specific date of release at Raees (film), it was up to me to find a source that cited a specific date. If this is a confusing issue for you, let me know how I can clarify it in a way that you can process. I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining "'Eid' is not universally understood (Note: WP:SEASON)" We shouldn't be saying "Christmas 2016" or "Autumn 2016" or "Passover 2016" either. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Fan (film). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diff: [5] If you can't find a reliable source to support your genre changes, please avoid making them, as genre is subjective, and your personal interpretation is insufficient for inclusion in an article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHY only my edit seems disruptive to you instead of that salman fanbot? WikiBriefed (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person you are calling "salman fanbot" is much more experienced that you here. My edit summary at Fan was a reaction to your behaviour at Salman's list. You cannot just remove a claim which is backed by a WP:RS. You need to discuss and gain a proper consensus for whatever you claim. Please stop edit warring here and there. And stop making false allegations like I "follow you". Your edit summary sounded fishy to me, that's why i interrupted. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I'm not surprised by your behaviour, as your talk page is full of such warning's which you have failed to understand. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Salman Khan filmography shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Thomas.W ^talk 18:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persisting in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith after my strong warning above, one previous block for the same thing, and warnings from several other people. E. g. you refer to an opponent as a "Salman fanbot". As for your own complaint on my page about Cyphoidbomb following you, I have responded there. 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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to 37th Filmfare Awards. Coasterlover1994 00:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Filmfare Award for Lux New Face of the Year[edit]

The article Filmfare Award for Lux New Face of the Year has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Historical award that was superseded by Filmfare Award for Best Male Debut and Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut. Appears to be sufficiently covered by those articles without need for this new article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safiel (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabu. 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) 09:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fan (film)[edit]

The previous 1-year semiprotection had expired. I renewed it for another year. DMacks (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

awesome manWikiBriefed (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

You've been around long enough to have familiarized yourself with our guidelines on reliable sources. I'm not sure why you'd think that this blog is valid for inclusion in an article, as you added here, but it is not, and I have reverted those changes. In addition, comparing these two sentences, the word "illegal" is redundant, when we have the word "prohibition". Prohibition = illegal, and the word applies to all the items in the list. I have reverted that change.

The film criticizes the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution and drugs in Gujarat.

The film criticizes the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs in Gujarat.

I will also note that this was previously reverted by DMacks with a clear explanation. Lastly, the content about SRK dressing up in a "never-before-seen" 1980s outfit is unencyclopedic. Actors dress differently all the time. This is not noteworthy information and it reads as amateurish parroting of trade rags for lack of anything more significant to talk about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Hi, WikiBriefed, please take Cyphoidbomb's critique above very seriously. To reinsert a completely illogical word, which has already once been deleted with a clear explanation, as you did here, is either careless or incompetent. It's the kind of thing that creates work for other users. The use of a blog as a source, and the silly sentence about "a never before seen look from 1980s ghetto Gujarat", is also incompetent editing. The phrasing is clearly simply lifted from this promotion of the film. New editors can be excused for editing poorly, but it's time you learned something from the things you have been told over and over, and raised the quality of your editing. If you don't, you may be blocked as a net negative for the encyclopedia, even if you do mean well. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission, and for ongoing disruption in ways against which you have been previously warned. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, WikiBriefed. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]