User talk:Anirudh131819

Welcome, Anirudh131819![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Anirudh131819! I'm I dream of horses, and I've been assigned as your mentor. Around 10% of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor randomly taken from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Galadriel, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Um, we don't do "blank images", it appears as a total and visible mess to every reader. Please stop, the result you want can't be achieved, and meanwhile you are disrupting the article for everyone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap Didn't mean to be disruptive. I apologize for what I did. Will try to be patient in this matter. Anirudh131819 (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap Btw can you please kindly explain the reason why you reverted my edit on Saruman which made a reference to Saruman's actions in the third film of Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" franchise? I sincerely feel that the article on Saruman is incomplete without it. You have mentioned that the edit lacks reference. In that case couldn't you have added a reference which you may have an access to? Anirudh131819 (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I feel (and editors for many years since have felt, including those who brought it to GA and who reviewed it, not me) that the coverage of the adaptations was sufficient, and that more would be WP:UNDUE. As it is a Good Article, it certainly doesn't need uncited additions - even less than any other type of article in fact. But the simple point is that the coverage of Jackson's interpretation is enough already; if someone has a scholarly point to make, such as that Lee played him in such-and-such a way which misinterpreted Tolkien because of something-or-other, that might be of interest; but that there was a detail in one of a trilogy of films is frankly not encyclopedic: this is not a fansite and its job is certainly not to say everything imaginable about every adaptation. Hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap I can understand. Anirudh131819 (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Hi Anirudh131819! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Citizenship Amendment Act several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Citizenship Amendment Act, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf Mr. Sangdeboeuf, the use of the term "woke" in the Indian context as I mentioned in the edit is commonplace amongst Indian social media users. But I don't know yet the origin of such a usage. So I added it as an edit on Wikipedia so that the other editors can help me on this matter.

Please allow me to restore my edit, then ask the other editors to add citations to my claim. Anirudh131819 (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Al Jazeera English, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 06:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby Not a problem man. I was angry that an Indian TV news channel was called "propaganda channel" in a similar destructive edit (although that Indian channel is of high repute). So I decided to teach that bozo a lesson with a tit-for-tat edit. Anirudh131819 (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wanting to fight against vandalism, but disturbing other Wikipedia pages doesn't help constructively, and Wikipedia doesn't work on a tit-for-tat basis. Feel free to revert and report further vandalism if you see it! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 06:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby Thanks for reverting btw. Anirudh131819 (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell I sincerely admit that deserve this punishment. I apologize for my hot-blooded actions.

If I require early cancellation of the block for any urgent constructive edit, I will follow your instructions.

After this 48 hours are over, I promise that I will never again misuse my privileges as an editor.

Thank you. Anirudh131819 (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes to Thirupaachi[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Thirupaachi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. A really cool tour (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A really cool tour I didn't mean to vandalize that article. I tried to only improve it. Anirudh131819 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A really cool tour Moreover, I also feel that the "picturization" column is unnecessary in the music section of this page. No other film page in Wikipedia has that section. Anirudh131819 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]