User talk:MridhulaSuresh

MridhulaSuresh, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MridhulaSuresh! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Montage Change

Change the montage of Ishqbaaaz MridhulaSuresh (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Protection policy. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ishqbaaaz, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Diff: [1] Unexplained removal of reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi MridhulaSuresh! You created a thread called Reverting issue at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

Last warning: Stop removing content from Ishqbaaaz without achieving consensus to do so via discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, if you add back the erroneous, useless parameters to the infobox again (|creator= |channel= |first_run= |released=) or the blank bullet points, your editing privileges will be interrupted. You can't keep requiring people to fix this stuff over and over again. Stop edit-warring and start discussing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi MridhulaSuresh! You created a thread called Need to block an user at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Ishqbaaaz. You are not above the rules, and the rules of Wikipedia, a communal project, require you to discuss changes and seek consensus when other editors revert you. When you are willing to discuss the controversial changes you've made, you are free to request an unblock, but be prepared to convince a reviewing admin that you understand why your edits have been problematic.

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 ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Edit warrings Happened only when the other user kept on reverting my page without any proper explanations. I have made a discussion even on the talk page about my edit also about the frequent changes. I have made a discussion in tea house too.Also,i believe The edit I made was according to the Wikipedia guidelines since I haven't received any warnings against it. It was the other user who kept on reverting my edits I don't find anything wrong in me MridhulaSuresh (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"It was the other person doing the edit war, not me" never works - please read WP:EW before you make another unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Reason is My edits was reverted by the other without any proper explanations. I still made gave my explanations in the page's discussion as well as in teahouse MridhulaSuresh (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This response does not indicate that you correctly understand policy on edit warring. Being correct or believing your edits follow guidelines is not a defense to edit warring as everyone in an edit war believes they are correct. To be unblocked you will need to indicate that you understand what edit warring is, how you did it, and how you will handle such disputes in the future. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I do agree that I made edit warrings,still it was because my edits have been reverted continuously despite reporting about that user.That particular user had been frequently reverting my edits though my edits were done properly by giving explanations and that made me to involve in edit warrings. In future, I would report any such situation happens again to some wikipedia admin and then wait for them to respond to my concern rather changing the content. MridhulaSuresh (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with Ponyo and Cyphoidbomb, but view the grammar concerns as insufficient proficiency in written English. MER-C 09:15, 6 May 2019 (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.

Administrator note For the reviewing admin, this user and Himanshigoyal1711 are editing in tandem, so from my perspective, whatever warning one of them got, the other should have taken heed. Per Ponyo's evaluation, it's possible they are the same person, but "from a strictly technical standpoint it looks like [meatpuppetry]." These two accounts have basically claimed ownership of Ishqbaaaz and are not editing per community norms. Attempts to educate either of them have not been successful. I don't oppose an unblock, but the problematic changes need to stop. For instance here the user deletes plot content on the basis that this plot content is for the second season of Ishqbaaaz. Both users seem to think that Ishqbaaaz is an article only about the first season, where it (like most TV articles) is an article about the entire program. If these accounts want to argue that what they're calling the "second season" is an entirely different television series, that's a different matter, but neither account has argued this. Further, we just can't have either account submit sloppy prose like this and this over and over again. Basic grammar rules must be adhered to. If this user can agree to discuss, not to edit-war, to follow community guidelines and to be more conscientious about the quality of the content they add, I won't oppose an unblock. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This above given references on my edits were eventually sorted out after warnings.For instance I haven't removed any regarding the cast, Instead have seperated the season1 and season 2 cast which too was done after my discussion with an admin. Secondly I am not connected with @Himanshigoyal1711. The plot changes were yet again made by another user which was removed by the user who reverted my edits and I just made use of the previous editor's edit In mine. The edit warrings Happened recently only when the contents of my edits were reverted frequently by another user without any proper explanations.I have discussed regarding this in the teahouse too. As said earlier,in future if my edits are reverted by the same user,I would connect with any other admin and wait until he or she respond me rather changing it again. MridhulaSuresh (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No administrator told you to separate the season 1 and season 2 cast. That is a total fabrication, and your claim below that you "made changes according to the Wikipedia guidelines" is totally false. What guidelines told you to split the cast list? @Ponyo: MridhulaSuresh claims they are not connected with Himanshigoyal1711. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: As you unfortunately know, these type of MEAT-y accounts are more often connected by intention as opposed to location. These individuals tasked, by the same employer, with bloating our articles with garbage promotion can all ride the same boat to Blocksville as far as I'm concerned. They may not know the other person enough to point them out from across a room of computers (or from a list of online usernames for those who edit from home), but I bet my bottom dollar that the same signatures show up on their pay cheques. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Mam, thank you for your response. I had no issues after my edit of separating season 1 cast and Season 2 cast. My edit was kept and Changing by the other user and that is the reason I have consulted you also on the page's 'talk'. The user kept on reverting without any proper explanations and yesterday when I saw her Change again it was clearly mentioned that "Stop doing disruptive edits else I will report you" I have made changes according to the Wikipedia guidelines and so you who edited the page after my message. But for Now, I have been blocked in editing pages. MridhulaSuresh (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Manupriy Ahluwalia[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ishqbaaaz montage.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ishqbaaaz montage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ishqbaaaz montage.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ishqbaaaz montage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ishqbaaaz montage.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ishqbaaaz montage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Noobie anonymous (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]