User talk:Computeracct

Films, cricket, tennis etc.

The accusations of paid editing against me are unequivocally false. I have absolutely not engaged in any paid editing. I am appealing the block through the appropriate channels.

Archive page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Computeracct/Archive_1

David Dhawan's Main Tera Hero poster is with order of Nargis Fakhri, Varun Dhawan and Ileana D'Cruz. But the actual cast order is Varun, Ileana and Nargis. Same way for HJTIHH, poster is with order of Mrunal, Varun, Pooja. But mention on Instagram post is in order of Varun, Pooja and Mrunal. Also second name should be mentioned unless it is patronymic. 103.161.55.220 (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mrunal and Varun shot the first schedule way back before Pooja was even in the picture for the film. That Pooja only joined in the 2nd schedule. So the cast order is Varun, Mrunal and then Pooja. a mention on Instagram in some other order for tagging means nothing compared to that.

Wikipedia naming convention is to use the most commonly used name, not second (or surname): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) Computeracct (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cast order is per information given by film makers. That Mrunal joined early because she was free at that time and Pooja was shooting for another film. You can also refer Main Tera Hero cast order for reference. 2607:740:65:0:A892:68F:C8A4:C5CE (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja wasn't even mentioned as part of the film until months later. All mentions were of Sreeleela being the 2nd heroine. There are literally zero articles about Pooja not being able to join the film 1st schedule because she was busy supposedly. That's because she was not confirmed as part of film till months later. Computeracct (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this article which is already cited.

Aug 1st

In a statement, the film producer revealed that the makers haven’t yet finalised any actress opposite Varun in the film. He said, “We have not yet approached anyone for the role. We are still in the process of finalising the cast. The first schedule has just been completed, and we will make an official announcement once we have locked someone for that role. Until then, we request audiences not to believe any rumors.”

https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/sreeleela-didnt-quit-varun-dhawans-upcoming-comedy-flick-she-was-never-a-part-of-it-ramesh-taurani-9488679/

Varun and Mrunal had completed the 1st schedule already. Pooja wasn't even finalised by this time. Computeracct (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Son of Sardaar 2. Epicion (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? All review entries I added are from WP:ICTF-approved sources. I also opened a discussion on the article talk page regarding the summary change.

Please discuss your concerns there instead of reverting in bulk without explanation.

There is no justification for calling these edits vandalism, as they are sourced and made in good faith.

From what I can see, you are not an administrator. If the reverts continue without discussion, I will raise this at WP:EW (edit warring noticeboard). Computeracct (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to The Bengal Files. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. rv reason show No reason but a reason was already provided in the Edit Summary Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 08:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to revert some other edit. Heading was correct, but I reverted the wrong entry.

My mistake. Computeracct (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Computeracct! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article 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, 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. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 08:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Started a topic in talk page.

Order of the critics reviews Computeracct (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mark Waugh, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

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.

THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid using misleading  edit summaries such as here. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing misleading.

Already gave explanation

summary-> mixed to negative reviews. (4 positive, 4 mixed, 10 negative.) Computeracct (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using AI to write your comments, I have seen your comments at Talk:The Bengal Files. You seem to be using AI to quickly generate comments that cite/quotes a variety of policies which ends up bludgeoning the talkpage discussion, for example comments such as these[1] appear to be written by AI. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was written by me. I polished it a little with the help of AI. In a small % of comments, I use AI to polish.

I take full editorial responsibility for my comments.

See Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence where AI can be used for editing (provided it is guided+checked by humans)

Your own link says:

Lightly edited by AI

We are highly confident this text was originally human written and polished by AI

So, I'd suggest you to look through things properly before making accusations and focus on the content : Wikipedia:Relevance of content Computeracct (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to use AI even to polish any comment. So this topic is closed. Computeracct (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You've received a formal, logged warning about edit warring in the WP:CT/SA topic area.

You have been sanctioned because you returned to edit warring The Bengal Files immediately after the end of a full protection period.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I considered a block, but I was glad to see you posted once at the talk page during the protection period. This was not enough of an earnest attempt at dispute resolution, but it was something. No more edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't see a Reply button, you should click "edit" in the section header or at the top of the page. The Reply function does not always work well(it doesn't always work when posting at the bottom). 331dot (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. It worked for me now. Computeracct (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to duplicate your comment; your original comment is visible. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks. Now looks like it has been shifted approprately. Computeracct (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page.

As this block is based off of private evidence, it can additionally be appealed to the Arbitration Committee by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

For an unblock to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue. For users with access to the queue, please see ticket:2025091410000339.

Offsite evidence indicates you have, at the very least, a conflict of interest with Vivek Agnihotri and the related review content you have been editing warring over. Given WP:OUTING I would recommend appealing this block to the Arbitration Committee— it’ll be easier to discuss the related evidence and you’ll be able to protect your privacy. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely insane.

I have no relationship to Vivek Agnihotri by any means at all.

Without even sending me a notification about this so called private evidence, how can a block happen?

I will be appealing to the Arbitration Committee. Computeracct (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Computeracct (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Your reason here" is not a reason to unblock you- I gather your statement below is your request. You indicated that you have appealed to the Arbitration Committee, they will handle your appeal. As a COIVRT member I have examined the information on the ticket, and I have concluded that this is a good block. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2025 (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.

I was blocked for supposedly having Conflict of interest issues/ Undisclosed paid editing

1. I understand and have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.

2. I am not related to Vivek Agnihotri by any means. Not being compensated for my edits and have no conflict of interest here.

3. I will continue to edit as per wiki rules

And I would like to know what this so-called private evidence of me having a conflict of interest wrt to  Vivek Agnihotri (you can email me)

It's obviously false.

And honestly I am surprised that I was not even given a notification of this so called private evidence against me before putting any sort of ban, let alone an indefinite one. Computeracct (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked, not banned. Indefinite does not mean "forever", it means only that you need to convince someone to remove it, that it does not have an arbitrary end date. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. But again, I'd request to see what this so called evidence against me is (you can send it to me via e-mail removing details of the person who sent it).

Since I know for a fact that I'm not related to Vivek Agnihotri in any way, nor am I being compensated for my edits, I should be given a chance to show that the evidence is not credible.

Also may I request to know why I was not even given a notification of this so called private evidence against me before the block?

I have not been vandalizing, nor threatening anyone, not been spamming.

I have provided evidence that I have made edits to quite a few other pages apart from Kashmir Files and Bengal Files.

and these edits below are constructive ->

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1311253034

and there are many more apart from these. Computeracct (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you give your questions to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot ok, but nothing wrong in requesting or asking for those here, is there?

If nothing wrong with that, I would request to know the answers to my questions here.

especially the so called evidence, which I had asked in my appeal post itself.

Computeracct (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole definition of private evidence requires that it not be disclosed publicly. That is why you need to talk to ArbCom, and only ArbCom, about this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COIVRT volunteers and Checkusers have signed documents preventing us from disclosing private evidence. Only ArbCom can decide if, and what, to tell you. Note that there are other concerns besides the subject of private evidence. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot ok, got it. Computeracct (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madharaasi&oldid=1309866818%20

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sachin_Tendulkar&oldid=1309748247%20

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sachin_Tendulkar&oldid=1309744421%20

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Waugh&oldid=1309697563%20

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Nalbandian&oldid=1309717771

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivaji_Surathkal&diff=prev&oldid=1309376938

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrunal_Thakur&diff=prev&oldid=1238225945 (from Feb 2024)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koi..._Mil_Gaya&diff=prev&oldid=1309215586

etc. Computeracct (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi Admins,

I was blocked for supposedly having Conflict of interest issues/ Undisclosed paid editing wrt to Vivek Agnihotri

1. I understand the above. I have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.

2. I am not related to Vivek Agnihotri by any means. I am not being compensated for my edits and have no conflict of interest here.

3. I have raised appeal to ArbCom. As we know, ArbCom takes time to decide. In the meanwhile, can I request admins that you keep me blocked from editing Bengal Files, Kashmir Files and any other Vivek Agnihotri related wiki pages- including talk pages if needed (i.e. page restriction/block), but remove the general indefinite block? That way I can continue to make constructive and useful edits as per wiki rules in other pages as I have done in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Computeracct#Links_of_my_edits_for_many_cricketers,_films_and_tennis_players

Appreciate your time and consideration.

Regards Computeracct

Decline reason:

The Arbitration Committee has declined the private unblock request via email. Daniel (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2025 (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.

Computeracct (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]