User talk:Knightmare2451

June 2024

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing.

In addition, please do not add or change content, as you did at Laapataa Ladies, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about my ip address being exposed and regarding the edit, the movie plot is exactly the same made in those edits. What source would you like me to link? when that is exactly the plot of the movie is. Would citing letterboxd reviews be enough in the mixed audience quote section? Knightmare2451 (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include something about audience reception, it needs to be reliably sourced. You can't just link to a review forum. If that was all that was required, anyone could source pretty much anything. See MOS:FILMAUDIENCE for the specifics. Regarding the plot summary edit you want to make, I would recommend posting a proposal to the talk page and see if consensus for the change can be reached. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Daniel Quinlan. I noticed that you recently removed content from Animal (2023 Indian film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Also, any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed do not correlate to the sentence which was very subjective and an personal opinion than an accurate description. Knightmare2451 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source you removed seems to support the preceding text. It seems like you are removing text based on your personal opinion. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and was removed by another editor. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it not an accurate description. The source sited is also a personal opinion. Removing it would be a more neutral point of view. Knightmare2451 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it's stated as a fact although the phrasing could probably be improved. I would strongly recommend reading WP:BRD. When other editors disagree, it's time to hit the talk page, not time to revert again. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Animal (2023 Indian film) 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; read about 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) 06:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for faking references, long-term edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First in this edit, you cited this source which comes nowhere near supporting the article text "the film has also come under scrutiny due to glorifying a relationship between an adult and a child". You later claimed this was a mistake, and that you meant to cite https://movies.fandom.com/wiki/Laapataa_Ladies:_A_Closer_Look_at_Its_Troubling_Themes, saying it "an article written by the founder of awardswatch". You obviously created a Fandom account impersonating another person, used that account to create a Fandom article, and then lied here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. That article is not written by me

2. Having gone through multiple reviews and articles the relationshsip between the main leads and their ages are not discussed. This source was the closest and most reputable i found having seen the film myself. Knightmare2451 (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]