User talk:110.145.188.158

July 2018

Hello, I'm Samf4u. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Sanjay Dutt— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Samf4u (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

No bare links in text please. - Samf4u (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually added many references, and added so much more information, this article is devoid of sources, how are my contributions wrong?110.145.188.158 (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sanjay Dutt. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Samf4u (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to properly format your inline citations. - Samf4u (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how is it vandalism? when I am providing a source? you need to explain that.110.145.188.158 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please See Help:Referencing for beginners. - Samf4u (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Inline citation. This might help you. - Samf4u (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that doesn't explain anything to me110.145.188.158 (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you once more. Addition of bare links in the text of an article is NOT permitted. If you can't understand and abide by Referencing for beginners that I provided for you to read you'll have a hard time contributing here. If you need help I will help you follow these rules. - Samf4u (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sanjay Dutt, you may be blocked from editing. Samf4u (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and understand Help:Referencing for beginners. I don't want to see you blocked from editing. -Samf4u (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your concern because my references are absolutely fine, and can be used.110.145.188.158 (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sanjay Dutt. Samf4u (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not fine. I'm trying to help you, but you must learn to properly format your inline citations. You can NOT just add a bare URL to the text and think you are adding a proper reference. I'll ask you one more time to PLEASE read the link to Referencing for beginners. If you are too lazy to do it right, don't do it at all. - Samf4u (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Inline citation. This may help you. - Samf4u (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my latest edit to Sanjay Dutt. I've added a properly formatted inline citation to the article. If you just follow that format you can add a ref to any article easily. If you have any questions drop me a line on my talk page. Good luck and happy editing. - Samf4u (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs as <ref></ref> citations are strongly discouraged for a variety of reasons, but not forbidden. They are sufficient to meet the verifiability policy. @Samf4u: it is certainly WP:NOT VANDALISM to add reasonable content with refs that are mis-formatted. You could tag the article with {{Cleanup bare URLs}} to alert everyone that there is some work to be done to bring the refs up to our expected guidelines. The documentation of that template explains an easy way to fix them. DMacks (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can also tell you to stop the disruptive editing, rather biased editing, and stop edit warring, why is it your word over mine? two editors agree on the content, what is your issue? even bare references were filled out by an editor, which clearly shows no one has issues with the content except for you?110.145.188.158 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The onus to find consensus is on editors wanting to restore disputed content, per WP:BLP.

Poor sources should not be used, per WP:BLP.

Promotional content is inappropriate, per WP:NOT and WP:POV.

Content tangential to the topic of an article is usually inappropriate per WP:NOT and WP:POV.

Please revert your edit to the article and respond here that you understand that you're at risk of a block if you continue editing the article as you have without clear consensus. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there is consensus, sheldonlove12 agrees with me, internetarchivebot filled in bare references, it is only you have issues, so it should be you who should be blocked? for your edit warring110.145.188.158 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Consensus is not achieved by completely ignoring policy.

Should I request you be blocked, or do you want to review those policies? --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you can request if you want, won't make you any less biased, and it is funny because you are also edit warring? and you are not following policies either?110.145.188.158 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to look at BLP for just a second, you'd know that it is requireed to remove such content from articles. --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you go to every celeb's page and remove all the info too? if it is by Wikipedia guidelines? everything can be quoted as a promotional as per you, even box office websites? 110.145.188.158 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to realize that the edits are problematic now. Problems in other articles are no excuse for trying to fix this one.

So are you going to self-revert your edit or not? --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no, there is nothing wrong with putting box office for a celeb, check any celeb page if you want, plus I have consensus, you seem to have an issue that a biopic has been made on him? like I don't even get it? so yeh complain if you want110.145.188.158 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

Your editing is being discussed at WP:AN3. Please consider joining the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.