User talk:Anushka127

Aishwarya Rai Filmography

Stop Edit warring on this article, and both of you discuss on the article talk page to get consensus, I will have to inform an admin if you continue edit warring persistently. A m i t 웃 15:05, 9 August 2013 (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:Anushka127 reported by User:A.amitkumar (Result: ). Thank you. A m i t 웃 15:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Aishwarya Rai Filmography. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Anushka127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have to agree that I happened to get a little vigorous.But I did that because a certain user(with multiple accounts) has been misusing the wiki-edit to write highly highly libelous stuff on the page.I pose no threat and have no wrong/unacceptable intent whatsoever.Also I am very glad that the page has been protected.But please accept my request-The article is highly libelous written with malicious content.So I would request the head editors to take a look at my well sourced page and carry out whatever necessary action.Also better if any of them writes a new article themselves.Or simply delete this page.Thank you! :-)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately throwing around declarations such as "highly libelous" isn't helpful. There are no "head editors" here, just volunteers who are trying to build and improve this online encyclopedia. The bottom line is that you were edit-warring to keep your preferred version of the article in place and I don't see any assurances in your unblock request that you wouldn't do so again should you find yourself in the same or similar situation. Please review the Guide to Appealing Blocks for a better understanding as to what information is useful to include in an unblock request. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm assuming that Anushka127 and this IP are the same individual.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Anushka127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agree that my behavior wasn't proper.And that I shouldn't have engaged in the edit-war whatever the reason was.I assure you that I wouldn't do it again. And as of now I only intend to post my version of Aishwarya Rai's filmography.Thats all!.It is well sourced and correct.Thank you :) Hi!So what have you thought about my request?Like I said I assure that I will not perform any unacceptable activity.And if you still think that I must not be unblocked,there is only one ardent request I want to make-Please delete/replace the article. Thank you!

Decline reason:

I think you don't understand why you're blocked. You just said, in your unblock request, that if unblocked, you intend to "post my version of Aishwarya Rai's filmography". That is the reason you were blocked in the first place. Why would we unblock you so you can repeat the same edit warring? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{unblock}} Yes!But the reason why I want a proper version is because the version present now isn't correct.It not only misrepresents her entire filmography but also chooses to ignore lot of the aspects of her career.Not to forget with words like 'only decent grossing' 'hat-trick of flops' and 'no footing in hw' when it actually is not true.I don't mind if my version isn't posted there.Even the one on her main page - Aishwarya Rai would be apt. I am quite surprised that my version has been rejected but the other person's version has been posted,who also had the same behaviour. Thanx anyways

Your block is about to expire shortly. Based on your unblock requests, which clearly show that you don't understand why you were blocked or Wikipedia policy, this a warning that if you go back to the same page and restore your version, you will be blocked again, this time for longer up to and including indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay!I am being told this "you don't understand why you have been blocked" again.Well,Like I said I am not adamant to restore my version but all I would like is to get the current version removed.And the short filmography on her main page would be apt,like I suggested.I wish my questions got answered which I posed in my previous unblock request.I think its really unfair to keep the other version(and its the misrepresented one) and choose to ignore my requests. :-( Please let me know about the article soon.It is my ardent request to get the current article removed,as it is incorrect data.Please help me on it!Thank you!

Nothing prevents you from expressing your concerns on the article talk page and using any of the dispute resolution mechanisms available to resolve content disputes. However, edits to the article itself will be scrutinized very carefully to ensure that you are not resuming where you left off. Content disputes are not resolved simply because one editor says "I'm right, you're wrong."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay!Btw I just read the 3R policy.It says "Reverting edits by banned users is not edit warring." If you take a look at the history of the filmography,the other person has been blocked/banned multiple times but is back with newer usernames.Can easily figure it out with the content and with the language the person has been writing. So is my block really justified? Anyways,can I get one chance of posting a different version?Please! Will do it after your permission.

No, you don't get "one chance". The other account has never been blocked before now. If you believe that the account is a puppet of another account, file a report at WP:SPI, but you'll need evidence to support your allegation. Finally, there's a difference between a ban and a block. Read up on that, too (I'm glad you at least read the 3RR policy).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,Here..Socketpuppets: Untieailed and Dreamastir and Annaaphid,and some more I am guessing.

I think it is unfair!Also I don't have so much of time to go through these processes.Wish a different version was accepted. The other person got away easily with the act. :( And if not me,aren't you guys authorized for it.So why don't you just delete the misrepresented data?Why only keep his/her article?And not mine?Thats what I am failing to understand still.Hence the discussion from my side.

Till you guys come to a conclusion about the other user.Please,let the intro be empty.And no,I have not posted my version as I was "warned".Thank you! :-)

Hello, I'm Andrewpmk. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Aishwarya Rai Filmography because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Andrewpmk | Talk 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you indefinitely for your little piece of vandalism, despite its being pre-announced. If you make abusive comments or unblock requests here, I will revoke your talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am thoroughly disappointed!None of my repeated request have been accepted.Please respond to me positively,atleast after investigating the socketpuppet.Also strange how no one is seeing the potentially destructive text on the page.Thank you!

And also I may not be present here for long/after long.So I am making one final request.This is the text from the actress's main page which we all know is verified.I would like it posted over this.And thats all I am begging for!

Rai made her acting debut in the 1997 biographical film Iruvar and starred in the commercially successful 1998 film Jeans. She earned wide public recognition and Best Actress awards at Filmfare for her leading roles in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's 1999 melodrama Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and the 2002 period film Devdas. She gained critical appreciation for her portrayal of Tagore's heroine Binodini in Rituparno Ghosh's 2003 film Chokher Bali, and a depressed woman in Ghosh's 2004 relationship drama Raincoat. Following a series of commercially unsuccessful films, Rai featured in the 2006 blockbuster adventure film Dhoom 2, the 2008 historical romance Jodhaa Akbar, and the 2010 science fiction film Enthiran. She garnered wide critical acclaim for her work in Bhansali's 2010 romantic drama Guzaarish.