User talk:Filmonline111

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Filmonline111! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

SON OF SARDAAR[edit]

Hello,you seem to be in little hurry while doing editting.Why are you delete the tag again if you did it before.You should not make decisions with yourself.Discuss it first and assume good faith.At first ,you may watch to what extent the article will go then you create new one if some more users agree.Thanks---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to merge it in the main article space then you are welcome to create new section if needed.There is no benefit in edit warring.So,please cooperate.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 05:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has suggested that the table of reviews you have added to Son of Sardaar is not accurate, and is copied from another article. My searches indicate that the table does indeed bear a remarkable resemblance to one in another article, which could lead others to be doubtful about your editing. It is essential that you provide reliable sources to show that the content you have added is valid. It should not be difficult to do this, as you need do no more than say what the sources were where you got the information about the reviews you refer to. Can you please say where you got the information? When you have done that we will be able to make it clear to the editor who has questioned your edits that you are in fact right. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I notice that one of your edit summaries refers to "edit warring", so you are clearly aware of the concept. I don't know, however, whether you are aware that edit warring can lead to being blocked from editing. (Note that such a block does not depend on whether the editing in question was "right" or "wrong": either way, persistent edit warring leads to being blocked.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this user is again adding the fake table. stop him John, please. He added the table, took out some nonexistent reviews but fudged the numbers so the ratings are 4s instead of the actual 1.5s and 2s. Why is he doing this? Ashermadan (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note the following facts:

You have again posted a list, albeit smaller, of supposed reviews.
You have still not said where you got your information, either here, in the article, or anywhere else as far as I can see.
Some of the information you have now posted directly contradicts information you had previously posted repeatedly, continuing even though others questioned that content.
Wikipedia policy is that all content which is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by reliable sources, and that it must not be reposted without such sources.

Consequently I must ask you to either provided reliable sources for the disputed content or else remove it. It cannot possibly be difficult to provide sources: all you have to do is say where you got the information from, unless, of course, you didn't get it from anywhere, but made it up. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent abuse of multiple accounts, evading blocks on several accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2012 (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).

Filmonline111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i am a victim of biasness on wikipeida.a user:Ashermadan removed everything from page of son of sardaar in one of his edits and even abused me,telling fucking faggot. But he was not blocked.Also,user:Zeeyantek added the soundtrack details without a consensus discussuion.Bue nothing was done against him.I ,even corrected the review table later,but i was blocked.why JamesBWatson is biased?

Decline reason:

The reason for your blocking is the abuse of multiple accounts. Your reason for requesting unblock does not address this problem. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2012 (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).

Filmonline111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i was abused by two accounts:- User:Zeeyanketu and user:Ashermadan. without seeing my point of view ,Peridon,you also are saying that i have abused multiple accounts.User:Zeeyanetu has told me fucking faggot.I even corrected the reviews table in Son of Sardaar ,even then i am block.olease unblock me and block those users who abused me.

Decline reason:

One more time. You are blocked because you have abused multiple accounts. If you wish to apply again for unblock, this is the issue which you must address. What other editors have or have not done is not relevant.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:19, 14 November 2012 (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).

Filmonline111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i have not abused any account,i have just given them suggestion not to edit without any reliable source.u can check the history of my edits and their edits on Son of Sardaar page

Decline reason:

You seem to be missing the point: YOU have personally edited Wikipedia using more than one account. That is not permitted. It is because you have done this, you're blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 14 November 2012 (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.

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Ashwni Dhir, Filmonline111!

Wikipedia editor Spartaz just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please don't copy paste text directly into articles as this creates a breach of our copyright rules.

To reply, leave a comment on Spartaz's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.