User talk:Farazdeswali

March 2021

Hello, I'm C1K98V. I noticed that you recently removed content from Qubool Hai 2.0 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 your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See the removal diff1 and addition diff2. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I am the one who maintained and added the episode summary to the page Qubool Hai 2.0 , see the addition diff1. I have watch the series Qubool Hai 2.0 personally and I edited whatever I found irrelevant.--Farazdeswali (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see the above the diff, which you have removed without explaining why that was not needed in the article (edit summary before saving the changes in article). And again you have added the same removed content into article without any edit summary. The community values your efforts that you have watched the series and added the episode summary, but I'm not sure if it is written in neutral tone, and I see many grammatical mistakes etc. Don't add puffery material or content which seem to be baised, try to be neutral, assume good faith towards other. Thanks for volunteering --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 01:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not European so I might made a grammatical mistakes. I also want to mention that I was not biased(not baised). Thank you for trying to pull me down with this racist comment.

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Prem Gali.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 09:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

April 2021

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I noticed that in this edit to Filmfare Awards, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It did it because this edit is looking like Gender bias. As you only highlighted the Female category of this award and it seems like you ignored the Male category. Thank you

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Fa8479 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fa8479. 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 ~~~~}}.  Cabayi (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

UTRS appeal #43177 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)