User talk:VishvaGuru1

Aesthetics vs Atheist

Hi. Those two are different words.

aesthetics = The study or philosophy of beauty
atheist = A person who does not believe in deities

In response to your edits at Cinematic style of S. S. Rajamouli — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... my mistake, aesthetics and atheist are two different things. Thanks DaxServer. — VishvaGuru1 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

linking

I noticed you have been making edits with an edit summary of "Removing link(s) to deleted pages". Redlinks can indicated a deleted page, but they are often links to pages that someone linked because they thought there should be an article per WP:RED. You shouldn't remove links just because they are red - only if they are red and unlikely to be suitable topics for eventual articles.

Also, see WP:GEOLINK. We don't link a country after a city - just Karachi, Pakistan for example. MB 16:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MB, for telling about WP:GEOLINK, Yaa.. it's my mistake to linking a country after a city. and when it comes to WP:RED, I have some confusion,

As per WP:REDLINK — "In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, Remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject."

It seems to be easy, but confusing the same time to understand.

"Look, mainly i had removed link from the filmography section. I want to understand that, Suppose if there are ten movies in filmography table and five have Redlink, and remaining have no link, and no article pages. Then how and who can choose that, this movie name should have an article, and others doesn't needed any article.

Because in my editing this happened so, should I add "REDLINK" to remaining one also, because every movie is important, and every movie should be an article. And if "No" then it could be deleted, and that's what I did and deleted those red link. I thought, it can't be convert into article. — VishvaGuru1 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a filmography, there can be bluelinks, redlinks, and no links - there is no need for consistency. Not all films are notable and should have articles. It depends on whether there are sufficient sources with in-depth coverage per WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Of course deciding this is subjective. With a long list in a filmography, you would have to research each one and make a decision. As with many things here, you have to use your best judgement. I don't think you removed redlinks you should not have unless you did just because they were red (which is what your edit summary says) - I haven't done any research on any of these. You should probably use a different edit summary like "removing links to non-notable films". Something else you can try is click on the redlink, and then do "Show what links here" and you will see how many articles link to the title (even though it doesn't exist). If there is only one, that is an indicator it is probably not notable. Hope this helps. MB 22:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... yes of course it helped, Thanks. VishvaGuru1 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Over-the-top media services in India. 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. 2A01:4C8:47:ADC4:4C07:52FF:FE0F:2817 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't thinks that it is an edit warring, because instead of reverting, I chooses to fixed the script assisted style as per MOS:BOLD#OTHER, MOS:B. But if you thinks that it's an edit warring so I think — "You started edit warring, Not me. So before any constructive reverting, you should have consensus on article's talk page."

If you read the wikipedia manual text styles or its section MOS:BOLD - Which clearly says that semantical emphasis (to denote importance, seriousness, or urgency), you can also use the HTML element "strong". This is desirable because the words can stand out for text to speech and other software, important due to accessibility issues. VishvaGuru1 (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Mauryabhi7715 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mauryabhi7715. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]