Wadelison

Hello, Wadelison, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Kailash29792 (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have redirected the article you created, List of highest-grossing Tamil movies, to List of highest-grossing Tamil films because your creation of the article duplicated content already found in the latter article. The "Tamil films" article has existed for several years, and is more suitably named. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add original research to articles as you apparently did to List of highest-grossing Tamil films. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Diffs: [1][2] Your personal evaluations do not belong in articles. If this content, including the observations you have made, are noteworthy, then you will be able to support them with reliable sources. Also, when content you submit is challenged, the burden is yours to discuss on the talk page and to dig up references. Resubmitting challenged content is not constructive. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of highest-grossing Tamil films, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Baba and Suresh Krishna. 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) 11:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re: this, I can't figure out what this edit is, other than disruptive. Without even explaining your change, let alone opening a discussion on the talk page to get some input, you ignored the 130 crore sourced gross for Veeram and replaced it with the 128 crore gross of Kaththi. I'd appreciate if you'd please explain your justification for doing this, since it look like "I like Kaththi better" or "I don't personally believe Veeram made that much". What is this? This is indistinguishable from vandalism to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Re: Well, there aren't enough sources to suggest that Veeram had grossed 130 crores while sufficient news sources have proved that Kaththi has grossed 128 crores wordwide. IBT has also removed the link for Veeram, replacing it with Kaththi as the 5th highest grossing at that time of its publication (in July'15). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadelison (talk • contribs)

How does anyone know how many sources there are if you don't discuss anything? As to the other part of your response, I don't see anything here that I can click on to check your statement about the placement of the film in a list. You should also be aware if you're not already, that the financials for Indian films are largely estimates, there are no "official" values, and thus there are no absolutes. So having more sources say X doesn't mean Y is any less accurate. That said, the actual source, Forbes India, is a bit vague on the gross, indicating "about 130". What these articles actually need as references, rather than sourced gross values, are references to "Top grossing film" lists, so that we can see how the so-called "authorities" place each film over one another. But it's fairly rare that we see those. @Kailash29792: Do you have any input on how this should be treated? Should we pull Veeram off the list since the source is vague? Present both films in the #10 spot? What's smart here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned above, IBT has positioned Kaththi as the 5th highest grossing movie at that time of the page's publication- July, 2015. (http://www.ibtimes.co.in/photos/all-time-highest-grossing-tamil-films-2881-slide-21711). Veeram is not even listed in the top 10. These are other links which support Kaththi's gross:

http://www.desiretrees.org/kaththi-box-office-collections/

http://www.tamilboxoffice1.com/2015/01/kaththi-world-wide-grossnetshare.html

http://www.indianmoviestats.com/moviedetail.html?movie=35

http://andhraboxoffice.com/info.aspx?id=683&cid=6&fid=872

There is no way Veeram could have grossed 130 crores, as Cyphoidbomb has stated earlier, the Forbes India stat is vague. There are no sources to back its gross. When thought logically, Veeram had a box office clash with Jilla. Both of them gathered similar opening collections. Jilla's lifetime gross was estimated to be around 70 crores. Is it possible for both the movies to do 200 crores in collections in total? The figure is hard to match even for a Hindi film feature back in early 2014. So kindly remove Veeram and replace it with Kaththi.

I think this needs to be discussed on the article's talk page so that more people have a chance to see it. Also, I don't think any of the additional four sources you brought to the discussion would be considered reliable by the Indian cinema task force. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Bollywood films of 2008, 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. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, re: these, you made some mistakes with rounding that need to be fixed, please. Hum Aapke Hain Koun you have at 127, but the source indicates 127.95, which would round up to 128 if you were rounding to the nearest whole number. If you were rounding to the nearest hundredth (like some of the other numbers are) it should be 129.96 because the next digit in line is a 5 (129.965). Dil To Pagal Hai you have at 71.86, but if we were rounding to the nearest hundredth, the next digit is a 5 (71.865) so we would round UP to 71.87. Please see this primer. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, you should consider that since you're updating the Highest-grossing films by year column, and none of those references you submitted seem to indicate that each film was the highest-grossing film of that year, the numbers are inherently problematic and may all wind up deleted anyway. It is a significant verifiability problem when all we have in that list are grosses, rather than summaries that say "X film was the highest grossing film of 2012 and it made Rs. NNN.NN crore." Surely we don't require readers to know the grosses of every film in Indian history. So when someone clicks on this reference, how do they confirm that No Entry was in fact the highest-grossing Indian film of 2005? That's what the giant message at the top of the section is about. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the objection raised above. You are just adding citations which show information about one particular movie not all the movies from the year. In case you haven't checked, the pre-existing data is backed by list for the whole year. The section is titled, 'Highest-grossing films by year', you have to cite the gross by the year not by the movies. Shimlaites (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, regarding the following replies above, I agree with the objections raised above. But, you must understand that the gross fgures stated are just domestic collections of the movies. The column title was "Worldwide collections", hence I had updated those figures. Please change the column title to Domestic Collection or remove Box Office India as a reliable source. -Wadelison

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to List of Highest-grossing Indian films does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 06:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, re: these changes, please quickly familiarise yourself with our community guidelines on reliable sources. You've been given several opportunities to get up to speed on this, as I notice on your talk page several links to the guidelines. Blastingnews is not a sufficient reference. We only care what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say. Unless you're prepared to argue that you know who runs the site and what journalistic credentials they have, you should stick to known mainstream news sites. See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for some examples of good and bad sources. You should also avoid any primary source (actors, directors, distributors, producers) for controversial claims about their financial achievements, as these people have vested interests to exaggerate. Many of the figures reported for The Great Father have come from the producers. There is obviously a long-standing competition between Mohanlal and Mammootty and we aren't here to fuel it by blindly republishing exaggerated claims. So again, we need independent verification from established sources. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove Chennai Express in the timeline of the highest grossing movies. Many reputed newspapers from your "published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy" have said that Chennai Express was the highest grossing movie at the time of its release, until its records were broken by Dhoom 3 a few months later-Wadelison

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most expensive Indian films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (film). 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) 09:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of highest-grossing Indian films in overseas markets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilwale. 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) 01:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lakshmi Manchu, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diffs: [3] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to M. Karunanidhi. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Arjayay (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Wadelison we have noticed the u made a change to actor Yash page, without citing reliable source, which is now reverted your all recent edits, which was made by u, please edit with proper source. Thank u

- I think I did cite a reliable source. Please check before editing- Wadelison

@Wadelison, what u were edited for yash, ur provided source was all awards belongs to Kirik party film, I don't find any single awards for SSF. So kindly check before citing the source and not even only yash page your all edits are abnormal, which doesn't have any regards to particular page n info, if u continue same u will be blocked from editing. Tevar shaa —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please add sources every time you say a film became the highest grossing in some aspect. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ghilli, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diff: [4] Any assertions about contentious information like box office records need to be sourced. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most expensive Indian films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spyder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of highest-grossing Indian films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spyder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Kailash Kher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mirchi

Lakshmi (actress) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mithunam

List of awards and nominations received by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mithunam

Manjula Ghattamaneni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Show

N. T. Rama Rao Jr., roles and awards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aadi

Neelakanta (director) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Show

Prabhu Deva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Varsham

S. Gopala Reddy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hello Brother

Saritha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arjun

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prabhu Deva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Varsham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2011 Indian Premier League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rahul Sharma

2016 Indian Premier League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chris Morris

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I notice that you have recently added a lot of statements like "x movie won y award." In three random edits that I just took a look at, all three were unsourced, and the titles of all three awards were redlinks. These do not seem like very constructive edits. Can you please take the time to point the awards to relevant articles, when they exist, such as redirecting Asianet Film Honour Special Jury Award to Asianet Film Awards? If there is not an existing article for the award at all, then I don't think it's very relevant content. And in any event, you need to be including citations. Wherever you are getting your information from, please just include that as a source. Otherwise you are creating a ton of work for other editors. If I can help, just let me know. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, here, you wrote Innocent won an award. Who is Innocent? I couldn't understand as the link takes me to an unrelated topic. Kindly look into it. Further, here you have added two links, both of them are incorrect links. One link takes me to the genre page and the other one links to a disambiguation page. Please help by correct them also. Thank you Vivek Ray (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

After a week with no reply, I've decided to go ahead and start removing these edits, because they are not sourced, are not very useful, include redlinks, and are generally non sequiturs where they are placed. They are simply not improvements. Wadelison, if you would like to add this information in a more constructive fashion (with citations), please feel free. Jessicapierce (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Jagathy Sreekumar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Halo

Spirit (2012 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lena

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Filmfare Award for Best Film – Kannada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pawan Kumar

Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor – Kannada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tarak

Vijay Award for Best Comedian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Soori

Vijay Award for Best Villain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spyder

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Filmfare Award for Best Film – Kannada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pawan Kumar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at AB de Villiers, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 17:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unsourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 17:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at James Anderson (cricketer). General Ization ^Talk 17:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're currently adding the same boilerplate text to tonnes of articles using Wikipedia as a source. We don't do that. Find a proper source please.

Whilst you're at it, you need to write "by the ICC" - this is English language Wikipedia and we use "the" before that sort of thing in written English. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Kevin Pietersen. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Mike Novikoff 18:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kevin Pietersen. — Mike Novikoff 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Saeed Ajmal. Don't use Wikipedia as a source as per WP:UGC Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please stop adding all this rubbish to cricket biographies of being in a random XI side. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

These aren't any random XI. These are selected by the cricket governing board. Please look them up before commenting anything related to cricket. If you do not know anything, please leave the edits to someone else well-versed in cricket.

I agree with @Lugnuts:. The way you're doing this is causing a range of difficulties and WP:IINFO certainly applies. There are enough problems with biographies in general becoming "and then she did this ... and then this happened to her ..." etc... That's not the way that we should be writing a biography really, so if someone's been in many of these teams it strikes me as more appropriate to be writing "Smith (was/has been) voted one of the leading T10 players (in 2024/on several occasions/each year between 1845 and 1876) by the TCCB" or similar. It would also be nice to see that you've a) learned how to reference (it really isn't that hard if you look) and b) can adapt your referencing style where necessary to the page in question. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have no issue with it being the ICC's XI of the Cricket World Cup, but all the rest isn't needed. Esp. when you've started to recently add Cricbuzz's XI Test side of X year! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you perhaps slow down your edits and use the preview function? In your recent edits, I'm noticing a lot of errors in formatting, punctuation, etc. These are minor, but you're creating work for other people. In addition, you're sometimes inserting information between existing content and its source, as with the Crininfo additions. Please take a little more care with your additions. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, regarding your additions to Suresh Raina, Gautam Gambhir, and perhaps more articles, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Glenn McGrath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to CA and Bowler

Alyssa Healy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CA

Brett Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bowler

Dennis Lillee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bowler

Matthew Hayden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CA

Ricky Ponting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CA

Steve Waugh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alyssa Healy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CA

Glenn McGrath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CA

Matthew Hayden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CA

Ricky Ponting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CA

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rohit Sharma, you may be blocked from editing. I reverted this edit by you after you resurrected it following a prior reversion. That level of inconsequential data breaches the rule about indiscriminate (trivial) information. It is in any case incorrect because, as I understand cricket, the word for a batsman's innings is just that – innings, not knock. I see from your contributions that it is not an isolated incident. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC) No Great Shaker (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is getting old. You have a wall of warnings on your talk page going back years and this is your 2nd block for substantially the same disruptive behavior. Stop it. The community's patience has about run out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wadelison (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't think the community knows about cricket in general and understands the significance of the innings I talk about. Please educate yourself about these matches. I have no problem in the community banning me but if they do not have the patience to understand cricket, then either defer these edits to better experts or accept my edits Wadelison (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

I don't think you know about Wikipedia in general or understand the significance of the policies we talk about. Please educate yourself about this website. I have no problem with you appealing your block, but if you do not have the patience to understand Wikipedia, then either defer to those editors who do know what they are doing or accept this block. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You been asked a number of times to stop adding non-notable achievements to cricketer's pages. Please stop doing so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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 noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop adding information which is non-notable to cricket articles. Please read the warnings above this as well - the ones you ended up getting blocked from editing for. The situation has not changed in the time you have been away from Wikipedia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Be careful about editing when not logged in as well. I found three edits from an IP address rather than your account. I'm sure this was simply an accident, but it's worth being careful - it can appear as if you're trying to avoid scrutiny. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Basin Reserve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chris Harris

Eden Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chris Harris

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of highest-grossing Tamil films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply