User talk:PrinceAnand2003

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the links I've posted above to know how to edit Wikipedia articles. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Rajesh Khanna, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Do not add unsourced content which I've removed here. Go through the links above on how to edit Wikipedia. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not write something which is not explicitly mentioned in the sources.
Do not wikilink "Rajesh Khanna" in the Rajesh Khanna article. It will be a circular redirect. Do not Bold, Italicize words unnecessarily.
Do not write Rajesh Khanna in every line. See WP:SURNAME. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2019 (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 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rajesh Khanna, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is based on teamwork. You shouldn't edit war when you are still learning. Don't do this, you have been asked not to as per MOS by me and User:Tolly4bolly before. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using the term "still", It represents the current time and this is not allowed as per MOS:REALTIME guideline. Secondly, do not keep reverting to the bracketed version for constituency. That is not he way. See other politician articles. Either formatting is like [[XYZ (Lok Sabha constituency)|XYZ Lok Sabha constituency]] or [[XYZ (Lok Sabha constituency)|XYZ]], We never keep it in brackets in good articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Rajesh Khanna. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. bonadea contributions talk 15:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PrinceAnand2003, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Ptinceanend2003 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Rajesh Khanna. bonadea contributions talk 16:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Rajesh Khanna. You should discuss and gain WP:CONSENSUS there whetehr to keep that "still unbroken record" string which according to me and Bonadea is puffery / promotional. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

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 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rajesh Khanna, you may be blocked from editing.

Please look before you revert. You restored inappropriate external links and poor English, you did not restore information (the info is there.) Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 09:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. What part of "engage on the talk page first" and "respect the consensus" is hard to understand? You ignore the existing discussion, which includes direct questions to you, and you restore the contentious content against consensus, seemingly believing that it is okay for you to do that if you post in a new section on the talk page. No. You have to engage in the existing discussion and NOT restore the contested text until and unless you get consensus in favour of doing so. And please do not require immediate responses from other editors. We have lives, jobs, and other hobbies. bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even we do

PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your extra account has been blocked

Why have you created two accounts? One person isn't supposed to have more than one account. I've blocked User:Ptinceanend2003 [sic]. I'm leaving this account, User:PrinceAnand2003 to continue editing. Though if you are only here for the purpose of promoting Rajesh Khanna, this account will soon be blocked too. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

January 2020

You currently appear to be 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. 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.

I am sorry, but what is it that is so difficult to understand about "discuss first"?? bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand u but is anyone discussing? You just answer when i do the edits. You dont discuss PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinged two more people. See what they suggest. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is anyone discussing? You just answer when i do the edits. The problem is that you edit without discussing... there is an ongoing thread about the "unbroken record" phrasing (where three different people have argued against including it, presenting Wikipedia policy based reasons, and nobody apart from yourself has argued in favour of it) and so when you make edits such as this without responding to any of the posts in the discussion, of course other editors will react to that. As a self-identified fan of Khanna, you may have a subconscious wish to portray him in a favourable light only, and that is why you need to engage with the discussion and try to understand why everything that is sourced is not appropriate to include. (And we haven't even touched on issues such as including too many sources, especially in the lede...) As for your question about posting in discussions, you are able to respond below people's posts here on your user talk page, and responding below the post you are replying to on an article talk page is exactly the same. --bonadea contributions talk 11:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MINOR

Hi there, please don't mark all of your edits as minor. Minor edits are changes that couldn't possibly be the subject of a dispute. That means small cosmetic changes like fixing incorrect spelling and punctuation and reverting obvious vandalism. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please post talk page comments below the post you are replying to

I removed your latest comment at Talk:Rajesh Khanna because yet again you posted your reply above the section instead of in the section and below the comment you were responding to. Feel free to restore it in the right place, but you might want to consider the fact that that many things do not belong in Wikipedia, even if there is some kind of source for them. --bonadea contributions talk 12:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rajesh Khanna. bonadea contributions talk 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop restoring unsourced and contested content without even attempting to discuss at the article talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 14 January 2020 (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 Rajesh Khanna, you may be blocked from editing. regentspark (comment) 15:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that you don't get a edit warring pass just because you don't revert more than 3 times in one 24 hour period. Repeatedly reverting over time is also considered edit warring. I strongly suggest you use the talk page or you will end up blocked. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop restoring unsourced and contested content without even attempting to discuss at the article talk page. The text is not acceptable, but you seem to be ignoring all explanations of why that is so. --bonadea contributions talk 18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refuse to discuss the contested content, and persist in edit-warring? The "unbroken" text is not acceptable because it does not follow Wikipedia policies. This has been explained several times. The lede is too detailed as it is. This has been explained several times. Details with no sources about how many films he made with other actors should not be added at all. This has been explained several times. I will not edit war over this, but unfortunately the article about this important actor is becoming almost unreadable, and it violates several policies. --bonadea contributions talk 13:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to List of awards and nominations received by Rajesh Khanna. 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. Dl2000 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]