User talk:Sarvagya 2003 Dubey

October 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, 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. Begoon 06:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on List of Bollywood films of 1993. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Begoon 21:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Bollywood films of 1998.

You've been told more than once that adding this "Verdict" column full of tabloid slang like "all-time blockbuster" is undesirable, unwanted and unencyclopedic. STOP doing it now, please. There won't be any more warnings about this disruptive editing. Begoon 01:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge; 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. Begoon 07:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. Begoon 07:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. Diffs: [1] Cinestaan is not considered a reliable source by the Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia. Also, since another editor has objected to your changes, you need to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus for these changes. This is particularly important because the article is GA rated, meaning that it took a lot of work and scrutiny to get it to where it is, and haphazard additions without discussions could result in the article being downgraded. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you need to discuss the changes you are attempting to make at Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, as they have largely been disruptive for one reason or another. In this batch of changes:

You are using Times of India as a source for the budget, but TOI factors in print and advertising costs into their totals, which isn't done anywhere else in the world, and which would make their budget figures inherently wrong 100% of the time. If you have a problem with the reference currently used for the budget figure, open a discussion on the talk page.
You changed the reference for gross without explaining why, and you also failed to round ₹1,067,375,000 appropriately to 107 crore. Why? Did you make a mistake, or do you not know how to round numbers? That's pretty much a requirement if you plan to mess around with financial figures.
You again removed the {{Estimation}} template with no justification to do so, and against consensus established at WT:ICTF. (See discussion archives)
You are attempting to rank films without using references that make these determinations. Using references that establish each film's gross doesn't tell us whether or not there were other films in between.

For these reasons, your account has been blocked temporarily to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. You need to start discussing your controversial changes. This is a collaborative project, and that means we require communication. I strongly recommend you start listening to experienced editors who are trying to give you an education in proper editing standards.

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) 20:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Sarvagya 2003 Dubey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #27361 was submitted on Oct 29, 2019 06:32:35. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 06:32, 29 October 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).

Sarvagya 2003 Dubey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Plz unblock me because I am not giving wrong information. I am trying to correct your article. I will try to correct it by provinding a more reliable proof

Decline reason:

Whether the content of your edits was correct or not is largely irrelevant to your block. You are blocked because your behaviour - reverting the article to your preferred version without discussion - was disruptive. In order to be unblocked, you will need to indicate your understanding of this, and explain what you will do to avoid becoming involved in such edit wars in the future. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:00, 29 October 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.

Some advice

Sarvagya 2003 Dubey, I'm not sure you understand what is being said to you here, so let me try to explain:

If you return after this block and continue editing in the same "bull in a china shop" manner, edit-warring, failing to discuss your edits, and ignoring the advice of experienced editors then it is very likely you will just be blocked again, perhaps even indefinitely.
It doesn't really matter that you think you are "right" or what you think you can "prove" - when you know that other editors disagree with a change you are making, because they have told you, or reverted you, it is up to you to initiate discussion on the article talk page and try to gain consensus for the change. Just blindly continuing to try to ram through changes to your preferred version without concern for consensus is disruptive editing.
Nobody wants to see you blocked, but, when other editors have to spend large amounts of valuable time which they could be profitably using elsewhere in cleaning up after you, it becomes necessary to protect the encyclopedia and its collaborative environment.
Most experienced editors are very open to genuine suggestions for improvement, and if you start talk-page discussions about your proposed changes I'm sure you'll find the input and responses you will receive helpful, either to help you to actually make good improvements that will be retained, or to explain why the article(s) can't be changed exactly as you are proposing.
Please try to bear this, and the other good advice you've been given above, in mind at all times when you do return, and I'm confident the result will be a better editing experience, both for you and for others, and improved articles.

Thanks. -- Begoon 03:45, 30 October 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).

Sarvagya 2003 Dubey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok sorry for my behaviour. Now I wont be involved in any type of edit war. I will discuss it then only I will proceed further. I just dont want the whole world to see fake details that's why. Well.. Sorry once again. But plzz.. correct the details as soon as possible.

Decline reason:

Block has expired SQL ^{Query me!} 22:05, 30 October 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.

November 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge.

After promising not to edit disruptively, without discussion, when you know that other editors disagree with your edits, you have resumed doing exactly that at this article.
It cannot be because you don't understand what is required, because there is ample explanation here.
Can you give any reason for this, or do you simply not care about editing according to our policies, within acceptable norms? If the latter then I can only conclude you understand that this is very likely to get you blocked again, possibly indefinitely, and don't care about that either? Begoon 09:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Begoon

Hello, Sarvagya 2003 Dubey. You have new messages at Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan.
Message added 10:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've opened the discussion which you should have started, at Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan#Box office sources. Please discuss your proposed edit(s) there. Thank you. -- Begoon 13:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

Stop removing {{Estimation}} templates. There are no exact figures in Indian film financials and WP:ICTF discussed this and decided that we should include Estimation templates so readers understand that these figures are not set in stone.
Re: these changes, you are not the arbiter of Truth in Indian film grosses. There are no websites that report official, independently verified figures for Indian film financials. All sources report estimates, and when there is a difference of opinion between two usually-reliable sources, like here and here, then we should present the gross in the form of a range, like: ₹211–235.7 crore. Why do you think the higher figure is more correct? Simply because it's higher? Do you see why there might be a problem here with confirmation bias, i.e. we like a certain film so we unconsciously or consciously pick higher gross values to make the film seem more successful? This is a problem. Stop it.
You again did not properly round ₹235.66, because you rounded it to 235.6, when it should be 235.7.

If you make any more sloppy mistakes like these again, your editing privileges will be interrupted again. Other people are not expected to have to clean up after you. Start discussing your box office figure before you change them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Chennai Express have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Super hit"

Re: these changes, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. We do not use hyperbolic language or declarations like "blockbuster", "super hit", "failure", "flop", "disaster", etc. Please do not add these labels, and if you find them in articles, please delete them. It is fine to say that a film was financially successful or did not perform well at the box office, provided you include a reference. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits, most recently here, where you again seem to to not know how to round numbers. I strongly advise you to take the next 72 hours and learn how to round figures properly. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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) 23:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shah Rukh Khan; 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.

We don't use subjective headings like that, particularly with the bizarre punctuation. And, no, that doesn't mean reinstate it without the exclamation mark - just don't...
I'm astonished you would replace that bizarre section heading, given all the problems with your editing in the past. Make another edit like that and I'll ask for you to be blocked indefinitely. Begoon 02:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits, most recently here, where you appear to have decided by yourself what the "truth" is in Indian financials, when all of the financial figures are derived through proprietary estimates. I just don't think that you have the current skills and understanding of neutral editing to contribute here constructively, so I have blocked your account to prevent damage to the encyclopedia.

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) 22:37, 23 November 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).

Sarvagya 2003 Dubey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok sorry. Now I will not make such changes in any of the article. But plz try to understand my problem also. No one is ready to discuss it with me that's why I make such changes.

Decline reason:

I agree with the below. This claim is utter nonsense. The problem is you and you alone. Yamla (talk) 12:00, 24 November 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.

Please link to some discussions which you have started where "No one [was] ready to discuss it with [you]", because that strikes me as completely untrue. You have been asked many times to discuss edits before making them, yet you have continued to edit unilaterally, with no discussion.
A number of users have explained the problems with your edits, and invited you to discuss them (for example, here: Talk:Jab_Tak_Hai_Jaan#Box_office_sources, which you ignored despite a clear request to participate given by ping and repeated here, above, in case you missed it...), but I can remember no examples at all of you joining in such a discussion. You have, in point of fact, made a total of only one edit to any Article talk pages - where you added a confusing comment to a 6-year old discussion which nobody probably noticed for that reason.
You have, instead, stubbornly and repeatedly inserted what you think is correct, and then repeatedly re-inserted it after it has been removed with long and clear explanations given to you for the removals, both in edit summaries and here on this page. Your claim that "No one [was] ready to discuss it with [you]" is, on the face of it, utter nonsense. -- Begoon 09:15, 24 November 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).

Sarvagya 2003 Dubey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok fine. You are correct I am wrong. I accept my fault. Last time forgive me for my behaviour. From nowonwards I will not make any type of edits to your so called 'fake' wikipedia articles. Okay. And dont dare to talk with me like that Mr. Begoon. Let the whole world see your fake informations and details. Wikpedia the 'fake' encyclopedia

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:20, 26 November 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.

Sarvagya, you need to sign your posts with four tildes, like ~~~~ Also, if you keep opening problematic or disingenuous unblock requests, you're going to quickly find your talk page access revoked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. I have revoked talk page access, given the personal attacks and given this user explicitly stated they will not make any edits any more. If the above request is declined and if you change your mind, WP:UTRS is available to you. --Yamla (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Some advice

More problems

November 2019

New message from Begoon

Last warning

November 2019

"Super hit"

November 2019