User talk:Chanakya Knights

Welcome

Hello, Chanakya Knights, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Human3015^TALK 08:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Chanakya Knights, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Chanakya Knights!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of most expensive Indian films. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September

It seems like u are editing a good faith edit every time to the page Chiranjeevi !!! please do not repeat as the present image is clear n more clarity one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by fygu (talk • contribs)

POV editing, gross values, approximations, Indian cinema, etc.

Your edits here are disruptive for the following reasons:

There are clearly inconsistencies between the published sources about the budget of this film. I opened a discussion on the talk page, which you have not participated in. Unilaterally deciding that you prefer one source over another is POV editing, which we're not here to do. Discuss.
The {{Estimation}} template should remain per the discussion at WT:ICTF. Removing it is disruptive.
We don't need "Worldwide" in the |gross= parameter in the infobox, because all gross values there are presumed to be global unless otherwise specified. See Template:Infobox film.
Again, picking one "reliable" source over another to propagate your POV in |gross= is disruptive. BOI estimates 90 crore. If there are discrepancies, again, we should present the content as a range or omit them entirely, not just pick the values that make us happy. The Bollywood Hungama reference you added doesn't say 79.9 crore, it says 68.68. The IBTimes source you added says 72.38, not 79.9 crore. So where did this value come from? It looks fabricated, to me.
The prose content you changed introduced grammatical errors, removed specific language about these values being approximations and attempted to provide a day-by-day analysis using different references that all have different ways of estimating the values. Gross values in Indian cinema are all estimations, not facts, so you should not be presenting them as such. Note in this source, the disclaimer, "The Box Office figures are compiled from various sources and our own research. The figures can be approximate and Bollywood Hungama does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data."
Lastly, when content you submit has been removed, it is your burden to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus for the inclusion of the information. Restoring the content without discussion is disruptive. See WP:BRD

Please consider these points ample notice that if you continue this disruptive editing style, you will find your account blocked, and you may ultimately cause the article to be protected. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Welcome Back (film). Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Diffs: [1][2] The content you have added back to this article is in dispute and there is an open discussion on the talk page that you need to participate in before the content is added back. If you choose not to participate in dicussion, you will not achieve consensus, and further edits of this nature will result in an interruption of your editing privileges. Additionally, please stop removing the {{Estimation}} template. That's in the article for a reason, based on a discussion at WP:ICTF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruption

Hi there, please explain why in this edit you unilaterally decided to change a sourced gross value with another sourced value that is significantly lower. What makes the source you added more reliable than the other reference? Since you never explain your edits, it's really starting to look to me like you have a specific perspective about certain films and you're trying to cater the article to your perspective, instead of presenting the range of opinions. Since we are not here to satisfy our own biases, its important that you explain your edits by using clear edit summaries, and when making controversial changes like these, you need to explain them clearly on the article's talk page. If you refuse to communicate, other editors will have no other option but to consider your changes biased and disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Welcome Back (film). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This most recent block was for your continued disruptive POV editing, most recently here at Baahubali: The Beginning where you again remove a range of estimates in favor of your preferred guess, yet again without participating in any discussion or achieving consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit revert

Hi I'm Political Cricketer. Recently you reverted two of my edits in the article Indian film collections. Regarding collections of Race gurram, source includes share collections only. If you want to add, provide source with gross collections. And other one is inclusion of director. It may lead to fan based edit war. Consider this and try to revert it. Thank you. - PK^talk 05:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chanakya, you have already been blocked twice for disruptive and silent edit warring. You need to start explaining your reverts both in edit summaries and on articles talk pages. If you refuse to provide a rational explanation for your changes and your reverts, you will soon find your account blocked again. This is a community project, and that means we communicate with one another as Political Cricketer is doing with you here. What's it going to be? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this was for again removing the Estimation template, which you have previously been instructed is disruptive. This is a community project, not your personal playground. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary detail in Gross parameter

Hi, please don't add unnecessary details in the |gross= parameter of film infoboxes as you've done here (and elsewhere). Worldwide values are always implied across the entire film editing community. Additionally, as long as a film is out, the gross values are expected to fluctuate. Adding "after five days" and other ephemeral nonsense only clutters up the infobox and requires constant updating. Given how difficult it is for some users to follow directions, including yourself, the simpler approach is the best approach. I've already brought some of this stuff to your attention above. If you continue to edit per your own personal preference instead of per the community's preference, I will have no choice but to indefinitely block your account to stop your disruption. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection templates

You are not an administrator, so you cannot protect articles. Don't add page protection templates to articles unless protection is in place and the template is missing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically Template:Bihar Legislative Assembly election, 2015, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query - please respond

Hi there, was there a reason why you removed a reference in this edit and discounted the information it provided? The source is reliable, so it's unclear why you opted to ignore their estimate. Please respond here, as I've added your watchlist to my talk page. Please note that if you don't respond with a valid reason, I may have to refer you to ANI. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC== Chanakya Knights ==

Sorry for my edits, but the source that provided by me is more reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanakya Knights (talk • contribs) 07:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. How is it more reliable? They are both considered reliable sources. You shouldn't be picking and choosing information, you should be presenting the whole picture. If two sources have different opinions about the box office results, then present the whole picture by providing a range. But choosing one reliable source over another just because it is consistent with your opinion, is unhelpful POV editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Talvar (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Srimanthudu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Bharatiya Janata Party. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Bharatiya Janata Party does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bharatiya Janata Party, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruce Lee - The Fighter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enthiran 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2.0

Why on earth did you change the film's title? [3] [4] [5] The film is called 2.0. Sigh, such a pain you are. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I hear it's called 2.O (O for Oreo). Kailash29792 (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's "2.0", only. "0" is pronounced as O (O for Oreo) in India, rather than saying "nought" or "zero" for example. The title is a number. [6] Editor 2050 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dictator (2016 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

How did you know dilwale collection 287 Dark knight rises pavan kumar (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how to edit protected pages

Hi wil u tell me how to edit protected pages like list of the highest grossing indian films. COC MAN (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start providing edit summaries now, please

Hi. I see above that you got a note on 26 November 2015, here, asking you nicely to provide edit summaries explaining your edits, how to do it, and why it's important for other editors that you do. But you're still not using any edit summaries whatsoever. Please use them from now on for all changes that are not minor. It's very difficult for other users to understand and respond to your edits if they don't know why you made them. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for unresponsiveness and, among other things, consistently editing without edit summaries after several warnings, including edits that really urgently need an explanation, such as this. I'm assuming the reason you have ignored the above and all other advice and warnings is that you're not aware you have a talkpage (you have never posted on any talkpage). Maybe you don't know about edit summaries, either. I'm sorry, but all attempts to contact you have failed (including several shorter blocks) and your bullheaded editing is a net negative for Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 9 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

From today onwards i will give edit summary. Please, unblock me. Chanakya Knights | talk 04:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. MER-C 12:26, 10 January 2016 (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.

You have a pattern of unresponsiveness, even to direct questions on your talk page. You're going to have to convince any potential unblocking admin that you understand why this behavior is problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chanakya Knights. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]