User talk:ARNAB22

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) 22:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC) you should write khans name in urdu too as he is given the honorary doctorate of urdu recently[reply]

Song notable[edit]

See Wikipedia:Notability_(music) to decide if "Gerua" or the soundtrack deserves its own article. BollyJeff | talk 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable reference change[edit]

Hi there, why did you swap out the Bollywood Hungama reference for Koimoi in this edit at Bajirao Mastani? If there's a range of opinion on the film's gross, you should present the range of opinion, not quietly change the value so that it better fits with your worldview, which is what this type of thing looks like. Feel free to reply here as I've added your talk page to my watchlist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that you've also done it here, swapping out Bollywood Hungama for Koimoi, again without presenting the range of opinion. Please understand that I do expect an answer on this, because to my experienced eye, this looks like POV editing, or editing that supports one person's point of view. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ronaldo, 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Bajirao Mastani, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Diff: [1] The box office value you changed was not consistent with the existing reference. At the time I checked it, the value was 328.34c, which was reflected in the article before you changed it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb I'm sorry Sir but you can't authorize Koimoi, why? Koimoi is also a official Bollywood partner as you can see. I've just edit or updates as per Koimoi website that also you can see. In Bollywood humgama reference that was old or some times before, I just updated those.

And Sir Mattythewhite I've written something about Ronaldo in the talk page of Carlos Rojas77 that he is often considered as the "greatest football player."

ARNAB22(talk) 21:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation makes no sense, grammatically or otherwise. No idea why you're bringing up Koimoi. In this edit, you changed the box office value to a value that was not consistent with the existing reference, Bollywood Hungama. You did the same thing here at Dilwale (2015 film), but you also changed the reference's title, which looks exactly like what someone who is engaged in subtle vandalism would do. Stop. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, you are responding to the comment I left in an earlier section. Well, now that you're up to speed, your edits at Bajirao Mastani and Dilwale are being considered vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Sir, & I am sorry for no sense. :( I'm a poor editor and user :( you can block me for vandalism. Can you help me to see some articles for perfect editing? As Wikipedia prefers and also for Wikimedia Commons.

ARNAB22(talk) 00:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might have better success editing at a version of Wikipedia in your native language, since being able to understand and communicate in English is very important here. There is a list here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! But you can't tell like that. What's my fault? I've done nothing wrong grammatically or spelling mistakes. In where you don't understood my words? Tell me. ARNAB22(talk) 01:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Tendulkar[edit]

Please stop vandalizing the Sachin Tendulkar page. He is not widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time but - much more importantly - even if he was, the sources do not support the claim. Statements made in Wikipedia articles need to have sources to back them up. There is no source quoted which states that Sachin Tendulkar is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time. If you want the article to say that then you need to find some reliable sources to quote. A section on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page was started where you can go to discuss this issue. Please respond to me there; this message is simply to let you know that your unsupported edit was undone. Thanks and Regards, FillsHerTease (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of highest-grossing Indian films. Diff: [2] The change you made is not consistent with the existing reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another unsupported edit to the Sachin Tendulkar page[edit]

This issue has become very serious.

1. You have been asked, several times now - courteously and politely; albeit firmly - to stop updating the Sachin Tendulkar article to say that "he is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time", without providing reliable sources to support the claim.

2. You have been instructed that there is a section on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page where this issue can and should be discussed.

3. You have been told that you need to include text which indicates why you are changing an article.

4. You have been warned by other editors regarding similar, unsupported and undocumented updates that you have made to other articles.

Nonetheless you have - yet again - updated the Sachin Tendulkar to say that "he is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time", without providing reliable sources to support the claim. Your unsupported updated has once again been removed.

DO NOT - UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES - UPDATE THE SACHIN TENDULKAR ARTICLE AGAIN WITHOUT FIRST:

1. Discussing the issue on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page. It is clear that you do not understand certain things and, as such, a discussion needs to take place so that you can become acquainted with the way things work. You MUST NOT update the Sachin Tendulkar article again unless you have discussed the matter and the proposed update has been agreed to.

2. Do not reply to me here, or on my personal Talk Page. All communication should take place on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page.

I am sorry to be so blunt but this is an important issue. You are updating Wikipedia to include a statement - a very serious statement - which is not supported. This unsupported claim is not just read by people who come to Wikipedia itself, it is visible in other places too, such as the infobox which appears to the right if someone performs a Google search for Sachin Tendulkar. Please try to understand the ramifications of what you are doing. Your unsupported claims do not only do a massive disservice to Wikipedia - helping to propagate the false belief that it is unreliable as a source of information - they do a disservice to you, to cricket, to Sachin Tendulkar, and to the other great batsman of history. It's wonderful that you so admire Sachin Tendulkar - yes, he was an incredible batsman - but you need to understand and acknowledge that Wikipedia is not a platform for you to propagate your own personal opinions. You have been provided every opportunity to discuss the matter on the Talk Page, but you have completely failed to engage with anyone about the issue. You have been told that your updates will be agreed to if you can find reliable sources to support them, but you have gone ahead and made changes without providing such sources. I am once again giving you the opportunity to come and discuss the issue so please - PLEASE - stop vandalising the page and engage with us about what you are trying to do. Thanks and Regards, FillsHerTease (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Airlift (film), you may be blocked from editing. PLEASE STOP YOUR DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND RESPECT THE GUIDELINES! SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 07:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Hi there, regarding these edits, 1) Please use desktop references instead of mobile links, as they tend to be more stable and more easily accessible/archivable. 2) Please avoid labeling gross values as "(worldwide)". All gross values are presumed to be worldwide values, per Template:Infobox film instructions. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here is not constructive. Please read the note above about the unnecessary labels you have added. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Prem Ratan Dhan Payo, you may be blocked from editing. - Managerarc™^talk 06:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reordering of cast at Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani[edit]

Hi, re: this edit, please don't reorder cast without providing an explanation consistent with Template:Infobox film and/or MOS:FILM. These changes are typically viewed as arbitrary, as if you're just making changes to entertain your personal preference for Actor A over Actor B. That may not be your intention, but that's why we have guidelines, and that's why we have edit summaries, so you can explain your changes. For the infobox, we typically derive starring roles from the film poster's printed billing block. In this case, your version would not be supported as there are no actor names in the billing block. It seems best to maintain the status quo unless there's a rational reason to change it. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reordering of cast[edit]

Hi, I've previously asked you not to do this, but again you have reordered a film's cast without providing an explanation consistent with established film editing guidelines. This tends to look like you're just entertaining some arbitrary prejudice or preference of yours, which would be completely unacceptable. Everybody has a favorite actor, some people (for whatever bizarre irrational reason) want to see their favorite actor's name first, blah blah blah. That's not what we're here to do. In this case, we have one of the rare Indian films whose theatrical poster has a billing block indicating the actors. The names appear in this order: Bachchan, Khan, Bachchan, Mukherji, Zinta, Kher. Per Template:Infobox film: "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.[1] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits." You clearly did not observe this guideline. Please don't reorder cast without providing a reason that is consistent with established guidelines, because if you, I will suspend your editing privileges. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of highest-grossing Indian films. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diff: [3] In this edit you changed a gross figure contrary to the source that follows it. This is indistinguishable from vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits.

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, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dilwale (2015 film). - Managerarc™^talk 21:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image use[edit]

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 India national cricket team, 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For [4][5] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi[edit]

Re: this, Koimoi is not considered a reliable source by WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Please don't use it again and please familiarize yourself with the sources that are appropriate for usage. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalising the Sachin Tendulkar page YET AGAIN![edit]

You have vandalised the Sachin Tendulkar page YET AGAIN! You were told - numerous times by numerous people - why you were NOT to vandalise the Sachin Tendulkar article with the unsupported and incorrect claim that he is widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time. He is NOT widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time, and the sources do NOT support the claim; as you were told ... over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

DO. NOT. DO. IT. AGAIN.

FillsHerTease (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, please note that an Edit Summary MUST be provided for EVERY EDIT and MUST contain information which refers to the edit you have made. You MUST start adding an Edit Summary to EVERY EDIT you make.

FillsHerTease (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, ARNAB22. 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]

November 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm MBlaze Lightning. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Salman Khan 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 the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — MBlaze Lightning ^T 13:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Raees (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Diff: [6] The film's poster indicates Shah Rukh Khan's name contains three words, not two. It's also unclear why you removed Mahira Khan's name from the article. Since you didn't provide an edit summary, I can't tell whether you had a good reason to make these changes, but they do seem disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kailash29792. An edit that you recently made to Shah Rukh Khan seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. While your edits are in good faith, all the content you add in the lead makes it look unconstructive. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raees gross[edit]

Re: this edit, there are two references in the |gross= parameter. As of this note, Bollywood Hungama indicates a gross of 235.76 crore, and Indian Express indicates a higher gross of 304 crore. While the lower range of 241.32 is inconsistent with Bollywood Hungama, I have no idea why you got rid of the range entirely. If there is a difference of opinion about the gross figures, I don't know of any better way to represent it than to provide a range. But deciding by yourself without explanation or discussion that the higher number must be right, doesn't seem constructive to me. Now, maybe the Bollywood Hungama figures haven't updated in a few days? I notice dates of 5 February, whereas Indian Express printed their figures 4 days later. Was that your rationale? It's impossible to tell if you don't explain anything, so please use clear edit summaries in the future. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Raees (film), without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diff: [7] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sachin Tendulkar. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

There is a discussion the article talk page. Please use it. Sitush (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Raees (film), you may be blocked from editing. Diff: [8] The changes you made are not supported by the reference that appears next to it. Your edit is indistinguishable from vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism, specifically for these changes, where you manipulate a film's budget out of conformity with the reference. Also, you needlessly bloated the film's genre with unsourced information, and you added your personal opinions about the film's financial performance, using POV language inappropriate for an 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) 17:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]