User talk:Adtigpta01

February 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sai Pallavi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diffs: [1] Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and any attempt to summarise a general opinion must be attributed to a reliable source that describes that general opinion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: these changes, lists of films like this are not intended to be all-inclusive, and when you add more to them, they just attract other people to add more and more. We call that a "cruft magnet". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and content we include should be serving some academic purpose. It's already dicey that this list is entirely unsourced when it comes to the claim of "commercial success". And, re: these changes, the community does not want announced films or pre-production films listed in filmographies. Please see WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Only when a film has started shooting would it be appropriate to add, and the information would have to be sourced. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ram Pothineni. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diff: [2] Such commentary must be reliably sourced Ab207 (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List crust in introductions

Hey, Adtigpta01, your change at the Rakul Preet Singh page was turned away by Cyphoidbomb in February. He explained why he turned it away (look up on your talk page). Can you explain why you made the change again a few hours ago? I turned away your changes two times at Jolie page ([3][4]). Do you think all the films actors starred or guest-starred in belong in the introduction? The Tourist got a very negative reception. So why should it be in the introduction? I don't want to edit war with you, but I don't think you listen and that you may need to be reported because you're just going to add back your changes that were turned away, aren't you? Film Bio Legacy (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ab207 and Fylindfotberserk, I saw that you turned away Adtigpta01's changes at a page. Diffs:[5][6] Too bad that Adtigpta01 doesn't care about WP:FILMOGRAPHY or anything else people say to them about the film pages here. This user just added back their changes to the Jolie page after I said some things to them about why the edit doesn't improve the page. The edit isn't even grammatical since the word the isn't in front of "major animation franchise Kung Fu Panda." The user brushes off words of advice and wisdom. They put what they like back after someone turns away their changes. They might not add their changes back until days or weeks later. Maybe we should ask about this at WT:FILMBIO or WT:FILM. Good luck with this one. Film Bio Legacy (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Kriti Sanon

Hello Adtigpta01. With these edits: [7], [8], you appear to be engaged in an edit war which may result in a block. Please see WP:BRD cycle and WP:3RR.

You must know that films are not added in filmography unless there is confirmation from reliable sources that shooting has begun (see WP:FILMOGRAPHY), which you did not provide. If you continued to add them, you may be at risk of being reported to the administrators. Thanks -- Ab207 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anne Hathaway. 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. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Anne Hathaway, you may be blocked from editing. --Bettydaisies (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why dont you update the info instead of deleting my edit. Do your work and improve my edit by using your input instead of reverting it completely Adtigpta01 (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did include the constructive additions you made. If you want to make the argument for Hathaway's current career trajectory being experimental, please do so on the talk page instead of engaging in a WP:EDITWAR per WP:BRD, and be sure to follow correct grammatical and spelling styles.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You done nothing.. you just reverted it completely.. that's it.. her fans want to know about her update recent work and upcoming project.. so if you really care then improve my edit don't revert it completely Adtigpta01 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the edit history of the page - I restored the information about her upcoming projects, and reverted the heading that featured incorrect spelling and a generalization that didn't appear to be supported by the content in the article. Again, if you want to make this argument, you can do so on the article's talk page. It's not my job to "do my work", because most constructive edits don't require after-editing. Please keep these principles in mind in the future. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I highly encourage you to discuss your major changes on the talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you are expected to discuss and collaborate with others in order to make constructive edits. Please review WP:EDITWAR, WP:BRD, and WP:3RR.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not just reverted the headline.. you also deleted the details about her recent projects like locked down and solos too.. and btw it's not your work then why are reverting my edit again and again? And even you i edited her upcoming project details based on the projects announcement.. so technically the Romantic comedy is the latest project and both mothers instinct and wecrashed announced far before than that the rom com.. so do some research before rearranging others edit Adtigpta01 (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted the headline. Previously, I reverted your prior edits because the spelling errors and unsourced generalizations made it unconstructive, and your unexplained additions made it WP:DISRUPTIVE (Again, WP:BRD). As for the "2020" headline, there's little evidence differentiating this phase of Hathaway's career from her other, recent projects - again, if you wish to make substantive changes, I strongly suggest arguing so on the talk page of the article itself, this isn't the place for it.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Itcouldbepossible. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kriti Sanon have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello, I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Vicky Kaushal have been undone because they did not appear constructive. Furthermore you have deleted informations related to the Kaushal Family which is used in other members of the family and are valid additions. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please refrain from making such changes in the future. Thanks. -- Talk 14 February 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

This is the last time I will come on your talk page and ask you to first BE CIVIL and second STOP making non-constructive edits on Vicky Kaushal. Next step will be to have you blocked from editing wikipedia because your behavior doesn't reflect the standard of this platform. Meryam90 (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Vicky Kaushal 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tom Holland. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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. Given that the article is WP:FA, the lead was discussed and agreed upon by several editors through a consensus-driven process. Seek to discuss at talk before making this big change; see WP:BRD. FrB.TG (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Adtigpta01 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: ). Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vicky Kaushal. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Adtigpta01 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: ). Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 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 Nikhila Vimal, 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. Thank you. Geniac (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vicky Kaushal. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]