User talk:Computeracct
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Computeracct, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Sita Ramam does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
HJTIHH
[edit]David Dhawan's Main Tera Hero poster is with order of Nargis Fakhri, Varun Dhawan and Ileana D'Cruz. But the actual cast order is Varun, Ileana and Nargis. Same way for HJTIHH, poster is with order of Mrunal, Varun, Pooja. But mention on Instagram post is in order of Varun, Pooja and Mrunal. Also second name should be mentioned unless it is patronymic. 103.161.55.220 (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Mrunal and Varun shot the first schedule way back before Pooja was even in the picture for the film. That Pooja only joined in the 2nd schedule. So the cast order is Varun, Mrunal and then Pooja. a mention on Instagram in some other order for tagging means nothing compared to that.
- Wikipedia naming convention is to use the most commonly used name, not second (or surname): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) Computeracct (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Cast order is per information given by film makers. That Mrunal joined early because she was free at that time and Pooja was shooting for another film. You can also refer Main Tera Hero cast order for reference. 2607:740:65:0:A892:68F:C8A4:C5CE (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pooja wasn't even mentioned as part of the film until months later. All mentions were of Sreeleela being the 2nd heroine. There are literally zero articles about Pooja not being able to join the film 1st schedule because she was busy supposedly. That's because she was not confirmed as part of film till months later. Computeracct (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- See this article which is already cited.
- Aug 1st
- In a statement, the film producer revealed that the makers haven’t yet finalised any actress opposite Varun in the film. He said, “We have not yet approached anyone for the role. We are still in the process of finalising the cast. The first schedule has just been completed, and we will make an official announcement once we have locked someone for that role. Until then, we request audiences not to believe any rumors.”
- https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/sreeleela-didnt-quit-varun-dhawans-upcoming-comedy-flick-she-was-never-a-part-of-it-ramesh-taurani-9488679/
- Varun and Mrunal had completed the 1st schedule already. Pooja wasn't even finalised by this time. Computeracct (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Cast order is per information given by film makers. That Mrunal joined early because she was free at that time and Pooja was shooting for another film. You can also refer Main Tera Hero cast order for reference. 2607:740:65:0:A892:68F:C8A4:C5CE (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
August 2025
[edit]
Hello, I'm Epicion. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Son of Sardaar 2, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Epicion (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I gave proper reliable sources. What are you talking about?
- You haven't even pointed out 1 or 2 sources where I didn't have proper citations.
- You removed the entire set of changes without even pointing out what exactly was wrong
- Am putting those back until you actually show me which sources are not reliable.
- Only remove those ones.
- not the entire set of changes Computeracct (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Son of Sardaar 2. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Epicion (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am putting it over there now. But maybe you should be specific about what exactly is the problem before deleting an edit. Computeracct (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Son of Sardaar 2. Get consensus at talk page before adding per WP:ONUS. Charliehdb (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I put reviews from credible sources per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources
- I put it on the talk page also.
- Positive reviews from credible news sources being deleted* and also added a comment there.
- No one else commented or objected.
- The objection was for sources not listed as credible. Since I posted reviews from credible sources, that should not qualify as vandalism.
- Is there a need for consensus here? and if so, how do I get a consensus if no one replies? Computeracct (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. slakr\ talk / 05:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Hello, I'm ChildrenWillListen. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Request for unblock
[edit]
Computeracct (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
made changes per objection comments
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:
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 06:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
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.
I made changes as per the objection comments. and put data only per credible sources.
There should be no dispute then.
My latest edits to *Son of Sardaar 2* were based entirely on reliable sources listed in the Indian cinema task force guidelines. Per WP:V and WP:ONUS, this content is verifiable and policy-compliant, and does not require prior consensus. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page and revised content to address prior objections. Reverting such edits without policy-based reasons, and labeling it vandalism, is not only unfair but contrary to Wikipedia's collaborative principles. I request a review of this block and the underlying dispute.
@Slakr @Charliehdb Computeracct (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Request for reconsideration of block
[edit]Computeracct (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I respectfully request reconsideration of the block.
I understand that the reason given for my block was edit warring.
After a warning, I made changes as per the objection comments. and put data only per credible sources.
My latest edits to *Son of Sardaar 2* were based entirely on reliable sources listed in the Indian cinema task force guidelines. Per WP:V and WP:ONUS, this content is verifiable and policy-compliant, and does not require prior consensus. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page and revised content to address prior objections. Reverting such edits without policy-based reasons, and labeling it vandalism, is not only unfair but contrary to Wikipedia's collaborative principles.
I do understand that edit warring disrupts wikipedia and assure you that I will not indulge in it.
I have done useful contributions in the past and will continue to do so.
The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia
I request a reconsideration of this block. Computeracct (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your block has expired. PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
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.
I edited your request so that your statement replaces the words "your reason here" as intended. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)