User talk:Paniraja

Hi

Paniraja, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Paniraja! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Van Damme

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Jean-Claude Van Damme, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.

In addition, here are a few tips to make your edits go more smoothly:

• When adding material to a section, read the section first to make sure that that material is not already mentioned. The Expendables 2 is already mentioned in the Lead of that article.

• Make sure the material is relevant to the article topic and section. None of box office grosses of Van Damme's other films, including his starring roles, are mentioned, so it isn't really relevant to do so with the films you mentioned, which were supporting roles or voice roles.
• Names of months are proper nouns, and should be capitalized.
• When adding numbers expresses in monetary figures, make sure that you include the monetary unit. "290 million" or "666 million" does not inform the reader of the amount with the symbol "$".

If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I hope it didn't come across wrong. Feel free to drop me a line any time you have a question or need help. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing to NYU article very similar to edits belonging to proven sockpuppets

As discussed in various areas including here and multiple sockpuppet investigations, several accounts suspected of belonging to one user have engaged in disruptive editing to the NYU and NYU-Poly articles, including but not limited to the addition of an excessive number of minor details about NYU-Poly, which result in, among other issues, a particularly disproportionate amount of information about NYU-Poly in the NYU article, and an unacceptable amount of typographical and grammar-related errors. Since then, several users have reported these accounts and the accounts have been proven to be sockpuppets that were subsequently blocked as a result of violating Wikipedia's policies through disruptive editing via multiple accounts. The edits by your account appear to be very similar to the aforementioned edits. If you are a sockpuppet of these accounts and you continue to engage in the aforementioned disruptive editing, your account is likely to be investigated and potentially blocked. Given that you are the same person behind these accounts, you should have learned by now that this type of disruptive editing is not welcome on Wikipedia. Please take heed of this notice. Thanks. --Schiez (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, 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 respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. Thank you.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  16:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Reverted vandalism"

Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism in your edit summaries, when it appears merely to be editing at odds with your possibly biased point of view. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}