Gtyagi60

September 2009

Please stop adding gossip and rumours on the Ness Wadia article - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Please stop adding nonsensical information and original research to the Abhishek Bachchan article. Your additions are non-notable, irrelevant, they go against WP:BLP, and on top of that, they are sourced to unreliable sources. If you do it again, you may be BLOCKED from editing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

PS - I also suspect you are a sock puppet and have another account on Wikipedia. This will be checked. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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).

Gtyagi60 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

user:Shshshsh and user:yellowMonkey ganging up to censor information and engaging in collaborative edit warring to remove content they do not see fit inspite of proper references

Decline reason:

This request does not address the reasons for your block, as stated in the the notices above by the blocking administrator.chaser (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Please note: WP:OWN

Your edit summary of "do not change this" [1] is not compatable with Wikipedia policies and will not be followed. You do not WP:OWN the article and cannot demand that other editors do not edit/alter/remove content you add. As the note directly beneath the "Save" button states: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You once again start your capaign on the Abhishek Bachchan page, reverting all my copyedits with unreliable sources and additions which add nothing. Please stop it, and consider it a warning. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Last warning

This is the last warning that you will receive for your disruptive editing. If you continue to add original research to the article of Abhishek Bachchan and edit warring, you will be BLOCKED from editing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The headlines today link contains abhishek's interview with koel purie where he mentions the 17 flops and how he dealt with them. I think a video clip is as reliable as things can get and it is also valid information in his career section

All four movies of 2005 were not hits. pls check boxofficeindia.com.

If you categorize movies as 'hits' why not categorize ones that have flopped as 'flops'?

I will make the changes till you provide satisfactory explanation or get a 3rd party to objectively intervene and give his/her opinion

Gtyagi60 (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)gtyagi60

Okay, I copyedited a bit what you wrote. As for the 17 flops thing, I will not revert it until a discussion is settled. I started a talk page discussion. Please participate in the debate. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally hate describing films as "hits" as much as "flops", it comes across as highly casual and commercial. Please talk about them as successes or failures, please...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)