User talk:Ds303

Boldface[edit]

Please go through the MOS:BOLDFACE policy. There are very few things that you can have a bold text in an article, for example, article titles and redirects. You cannot bold parts of articles based on personal preferences like you did here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ds303 There is an ongoing discussion here - Newbie User / IP range not adhering to MOS:BOLDFACE and MO:ITALICS. Please participate before you edit any further. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm DaxServer. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. EN-Jungwon 15:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now he is reverting to far older versions, like this. Please keep an eye on him. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyaasa[edit]

Why are you removing the poster from it? Moreover, please adhere to WP:OVERLINK. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have engaged in block evasion as User talk:2405:204:A52B:A255:0:0:5E:F8A4 I am increasing the block to 1 week. I considered indefinite. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any administrator may alter this block without consulting me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Dilip Kumar. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Kylo Ren III (talk ☎️) 04:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Dilip Kumar, you may be blocked from editing. Where is the source to verify that Dilip Kumar's method acting predates Marlon Brando's? Kylo Ren III (talk ☎️) 04:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation no 97 is the proof. And there are numerous others that I can provide to prove that fact that Dilip Kumar was true pioneer of method acting predating Marlon Brando who started acting only in 1950s Ds303 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dilip Kumar. Kylo Ren III (talk ☎️) 05:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dilip Kumar. Kylo Ren III (talk ☎️) 20:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dilip Kumar. Kylo Ren III (talk ☎️) 17:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dilip Kumar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cinema. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:EUPHEMISM[edit]

You have been adding a lot of this at Dilip Kumar. "He died", not, "He passed away". Kylo Ren III (talk ☎️) 17:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia's policies on WP:RELIABLESOURCES and MOS:PUFFERY. Kylo Ren III (talk ☎️) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

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 Dilip Kumar, you may be blocked from editing. Kylo Ren III (talk ☎️) 03:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tarak Nath Gandhi[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tarak Nath Gandhi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Taukeerppw (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2022 (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).

Ds303 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have written everything from a certain source maybe in certain small articles I may not have cited them. There may be some promotional elements in them but if I don't add things, the pages will remain stale for years like they had been. In many of the articles, I have simply added quotes or sometimes data, even that has been reverted. Please take up additions you are okay with especially in Dilip Kumar article, which had been written after a lot of hardwork and research. Writing 12000 words for a page is no joke. I have added more than enough citations in them. Atleast take certain additions you feel okay.

Decline reason:

You were repeatedly warned by editors over having problematic edits and then continued to make major edits after that. Yet you never tried to communicate with them? Your appeal is going to have to explain why we think your communication around problems (and avoiding problems) will be better in the future Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2022 (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.