User talk:007nkr

November 2016

Hello, I'm Cotton2. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to CMS, Rajajipuram Branch NB have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cotton2 (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at CMS, Rajajipuram Branch NB. 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. Cotton2 (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at CMS, Rajajipuram Branch NB 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 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.

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/007nkr. Thank you. Cotton2 (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cotton2 (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at CMS, Rajajipuram Branch NB, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: CMS, Rajajipuram Branch NB was changed by 007nkr (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.964685 on 2016-11-22T12:00:56+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this from our previous discussion... Hello 007nkr, there are a couple of problems with your edit. The most serious is that it is unsourced. While you cited a source, the information you added is not in the source. The source is not a 3rd party reliable source per WP:RS. The second problem is that the article lead is an introduction to the article covering the the article's entirety. Your edit should be added in the body of the article, even a new section, if needed. Please feel free to add the information with proper sourcing. Help:Referencing for beginners might help with that. Cotton2 (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at CMS, Rajajipuram Branch NB. Cotton2 (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Cotton2 (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]