User talk:Sheldonlove12

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 1997kB was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published,

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please see

WP:NYF

.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:3 Dev
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheldonlove12! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheldonlove12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

To keep up to date with interesting news and developments, you may also wish to subscribe to

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MAXNP (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 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, as you did at Dill Mill Gayye, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but i don't understand the issue? every page has a reception page? Sheldonlove12 (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Karan Singh Grover. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.

Please stop restoring grammar and formatting errors, multiple copies of the same references, and similar problems. bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are also edit warring what about that?Sheldonlove12 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the changes you reverted?? You are restoring grammar errors and multiple copies of the same reference! Why is it an "attack" to improve an article in terms of grammar and removal of superfluous details that do not belong in the article and should never have been added in the first place? Please explain yourself on the article talk page. I am not going to restore my improvements, obviously - I am forced to leave the silly grammar errors and multiple copies of the same references there. --bonadea contributions talk 11:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you are removing chunks of sentences, thats not grammatical errors you seem to have a special grouse against dill mill gayye and karan singh grover, you should explain your editsSheldonlove12 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article now says "In 2007 Grover got the show Dill Mill Gayye [...]" which is not quite idiomatic - one does not "get" a show. I changed this to "In 2007 Grover was cast in a starring role in the show Dill Mill Gayye". (I could agree that we don't need to point out the starring role - that might be seen as unduly promotional.)
• The article now says "After Dill Mill Gayye, Grover did two shows with Cinevistaas Limited, he featured in their telefilm [...] and did a cameo in [...]". Apart from the formatting issues and the fact that "Cinevistaas Limited" was already linked in the previous paragraph, there is a comma splice ("he featured"). In addition, "did a cameo" is not quite idiomatic. I changed it to "After Dill Mill Gayye, Grover did two shows with Cinevistaas Limited, featuring in their telefilm [...] and making a cameo appearance in [...]" which takes care of the formatting, the comma splice and the idiomaticity issue.
• The article now says "In 2015, Grover's films Alone and Hate Story 3 were released." The films are not "his", he was one off the actors in those films. I changed this to "Grover has also played in two Bollywood films, released in 2015: Alone and Hate Story 3."
• The article now includes some details about the films that are not related to Grover. I removed them, since they belong in the articles about the respective films. The language was also unnecessarily promotional, and two references did not meet
  WP:RS
  for that reason.

That was the extent of my edits, all of which were reverted with incomprehensible edit summaries about "attack" and "unfair editing". Note that in my last edit I did not remove, e.g., the inappropriate and not reliably sourced claim about "fans' demand" after you edit warred over it - that kind of verbiage does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia but I am not going to waste time arguing about it. --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can make those grammatical issues if you want, but you cannot remove properly sourced sentences, that is not correct and is unfair, you did the same with dill mill gayye, i think editing should be about compromising, i removed a lot from the article and took on your POV, but you cannot edit a page without understanding other people's POVSheldonlove12 (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm certainly not going to waste my time on that, not when other editors war over it to the brink of 3RR. And you clearly did not read what I said above, so... --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for Dill Mill Gayye, that is incorrect - that article, like the Grover one and the one about one of the female stars of the show (Shilpa Anand) have been plagued by sockpuppets. Please read

WP:BLP is a very important policy. --bonadea contributions talk 12:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Shilpa Anand's page had many bad sources, i agree, but karan's pages and dill mill gayye page had proper sources, i don't want to argue with you either, one should work as a team, i didn't want to edit war, hence i removed a lot of things you wanted removed, i can also check the grammar if you want, and as for hate story 3 and alone - both movies - he was the lead - read up on it - so the grammar is not actually as bad as you are making it out to beSheldonlove12 (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 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, as you did at Karan Singh Grover, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC) how many times do you want to have this conversation?Sheldonlove12 (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Karan Singh Grover. bonadea contributions talk 09:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is you who is vandalising? your opinions aren't facts, ur edit warringSheldonlove12 (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing her awards and nominations from her wiki page, seems like yet another jealous fan of her ex! Please stop the menace stop causing unnecessary troubles. Ra13a13 (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

who made you an editor? how can you put information on her page without a proper source? why should I be jealous of her? when she has silly fans like you?Sheldonlove12 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then point me to the discussion where consensus was reached. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

show me where consensus was not reached? many things are added on the wiki pages which are well sourced, not everything is added by taking permission of 100 peopleSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:BURDEN. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

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. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sheldonlove12. It's a common problem to use

i have already discussed the idea of having more information about the said person in the talk page and i was supported on it, this guy has had a 37 year old career and 180 films, and yet apparently it is puffery just to put simple info like how well his movies did? thats not justifiedSheldonlove12 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  DMacks (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sanjay Dutt. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC) how is my edit "disruptive" giving box office details and more references is not "disruptive", I have discussed everything on the talk page also, so please quit being biased towards me for no reasonSheldonlove12 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Sanjay Dutt. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheldonlove12. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I noticed that you recently removed content 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. Diff: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]