Greatly influenced

Welcome!

Hello, Greatly influenced! Welcome to Wikipedia! You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! SkyWarrior 02:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Luv Ranjan. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Please stick to reputable news sites and avoid using sites like govvacancy.in which is just a scraper site. Not everything that shows up in a google search is usable on Wikipedia, it needs to be a reputable site. And please, don't use URL shorteners to get around blacklists or deprecated sources. In addition to removing the edit, URL shorteners will end up being added to the spam blacklist. Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Request to change Birth Year

Kindly, change Shraddha Kapoor's birth year to 1989. There are many reliable sources which indicate that her birth year is 1989. In an interviewer, the interviewer herself said that her age is 24 as of April, 2013 infront of her according to which her current age is 33 not 35.

Source: Shraddha Kapoor in Anupama talk show

June 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Stree (2018 film), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ManaliJain (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Brahmāstra (film), please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello, I'm Geniac. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kangana Ranaut, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Geniac (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

[1] I am providing you the link of her leaked passport from where you can check that she was born in 1986. I don't know much about referencing and all since I am a beginner so you may take decision after that.

Greatly influenced (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Luv Ranjan's Untitled Next (July 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onmyway22 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Luv Ranjan's Untitled Next and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Luv Ranjan's Untitled Next, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onmyway22 talk 03:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Greatly influenced! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onmyway22 talk 03:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

March 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Tu Jhoothi Main Makkaar, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Yes, the 200cr budget is sourced. Yes, I realize you disagree with it. When sources disagree, the wikipedia policy is to state a range, with the sources for the different values. Please revert and update appropriately. Ravensfire (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your recent editing history at Tu Jhoothi Main Makkaar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I believe you mean well, but you really need to be aware of the three revert limit, and you're well past it right now. Please think about getting a discussion about the budget going on the article talk page. Something to consider is that reliable sources can and often do differ on information like film budgets. Having a range in the infobox and mentioned in the article is both acceptable and the normal approach in articles when sources differ on something. --SuperSharanya (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop removing budget as it is reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Also you were engaged in edit war. SuperSharanya (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The budget is unreliable in itself. The site Pinkvilla and Financial Express are relying on the statement given by Bhushan that the budget is 200 crore but he is not even the producer of this movie. Further, Ranbir hasn't even charged any fee from Ranjan yet then how could you expect a romcom budget to be nearly that of mass action entertainer Pathaan. I advise you to remove the budget or put it in the segment of 75-100cr. Greatly influenced (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Financial Express clearly tells that Ranbir Kapoor charged high fees. How you know he didn't charged any free? SuperSharanya (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

[2] check this.. ranbir giving an official statement on ndtv. Greatly influenced (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to prove with reliable source. WP:RS is required in Wikipedia. SuperSharanya (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Generally, WP:PRIMARY sources such as the "official statement" from producers is discouraged. They have incentives to push public views in certain ways. Wikipedia's preference is for WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDANT sources. Ravensfire (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Then why not include the budget which ABP News mentioned? Its much reliable than Pinkvilla and Financial Express. Greatly influenced (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

English refs are more reliable than other languages in Wikipedia. SuperSharanya (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

But you should acknowledge the reliability of the source before anything. Pinkvilla is one of the most unreliable source for Wikipedia. The Financial Express itself doesn't rely on anything except Bhushan's statement who himself is not a producer of this film. Greatly influenced (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sacnilk.com is unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Please don't add unreliable refs to Wikipedia. SuperSharanya (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. How do you know it's Bhushan's statement? First make clear. Please don't remove the reliable budget. Thanks. SuperSharanya (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Your recent editing history at Tu Jhoothi Main Makkaar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I believe you mean well, but you really need to be aware of the three revert limit, and you're well past it right now. Please think about getting a discussion about the budget going on the article talk page. Something to consider is that reliable sources can and often do differ on information like film budgets. Having a range in the infobox and mentioned in the article is both acceptable and the normal approach in articles when sources differ on something. -- SuperSharanya (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Tu Jhoothi Main Makkaar for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Tu Jhoothi Main Makkaar, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Yes, the 200cr budget is sourced. Yes, I realize you disagree with it. When sources disagree, the wikipedia policy is to state a range, with the sources for the different values. Please revert and update appropriately. AnnaMankad (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tu Jhoothi Main Makkaar. You've been blocked from this article before for disruptive edits and you've continued to do so. Do not remove the budget again without a consensus on the article talk page. You've made no attempt to discuss this, just removing material you disagree with that is sourced to a reliable source. That's not acceptable on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing maintenance tags and disruptive editing

Hello, please do not remove maintenance tags (like "citation needed") without resolving the issues they identify. I just reversed multiple instances of this across seemingly random articles- none of these were appropriate, and can be considered disruptive editing.

On the same topic, I noticed that a large majority of your edits lately involve adding a single, unnecessary space at the end of paragraphs. This sort of change is considered disruptive as well. Many editors have articles they care about on their watchlists, and you are wasting their time reviewing these edits. I can only assume you are trying to fast-track to some sort of status based on edit count: Wikipedians are not stupid, and it is very easy to check that the majority of your "edits" in this regard are fake changes which contribute nothing to the encyclopedia.

You make some really great changes here and there, and clearly have a strong grasp of English (some of your edits show a sophisticated understanding of grammar that many contributors lack), so I'm genuinely confused about what's going on. The best faith interpretation I have is that you're bored- if so, there's plenty of work to be done here, and you're smart and capable enough to lend a hand!

Finally, as you navigate towards more productive contributions, please always use an edit summary when submitting your changes. This, too, helps save the time of your fellow editors, all of whom are volunteers. Thanks, have a great day! Chiselinccc (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)