Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

India: Uttar Pradesh Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance).

I'm pinging the experienced editors @Liz:, @Celestina007:, @Ravensfire:, @Onel5969: and @Princepratap1234: because Manali is not allowing for making constructive edits here. Ankit Gupta has not played Shaurya in Bekaboo 2. Shaurya was played by Tusharr Khanna. But Manali is adding unreliable references and trying to acrredit that role for Gupta when he has not even played the role. The evidence that Tusharr played the role is this article [1] and this promo from digital platform which hosted that series itself shows Tusharr Khanna which is seen in this video [2]. Manali is also adding many unreliable sources into the article such as Bulletin times and Bollywood Hungama. Someone please stop her!--117.230.25.64 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the sources you are providing aren't reliable. If you want to prove that not Gupta but some other actor played the particular character, than you need to provide reliable source(s). Secondly, you are adding up unsourced birth details plus trivia in filmography section, and that's the reason I reverted your edits. Lastly, I ain't adding any unreliable sources. ManaliJain (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read- WP:DOB, WP:FILMOGRAPHY, WP:ICTFSOURCES. ManaliJain (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ManaliJain:

Secondly, you are adding up unsourced birth details plus trivia in filmography section, and that's the reason I reverted your edits. Oh please I had added a source for that but you just seem to be blind because you are following WP:OWN in this article.

Lastly, I ain't adding any unreliable sources. This is what is your problem. You are having so much pride that you know everything. Firstly you need to have a good touch up of Wikipedia. Who added Bollywood Hungama and Bulletin times in this article? It was you and the evidence is in the revision history of this article. First you have to read WP:ICTFSOURCES and then ask others to do it.

Firstly, the sources you are providing aren't reliable. If you want to prove that not Gupta but some other actor played the particular character, than you need to provide reliable source(s). Then what about the sources you have given for Gupta had played that role? Which is this right [3]? You can ask any of the editors I have pinged here. The source you have provided that Gupta has played Shaurya in Bekaboo 2 is neither reliable. First go and read WP:ICTFSOURCES.--117.230.25.64 (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly check your cited source and read WP:NOYT once. For birth/personal details, reliable or independent source(s) are needed and YouTube isn't considered and that's the reason I removed it. Bulletin Times was added a long time back which has been removed now, and Bollywood Hungama is considered a reliable source. And please stop with this, you're talking about this show since months that Gupta shouldn't be mentioned related to the particular show, kindly bring reliable source(s) first and prove your point rather than attacking other editors with these baseless things. ManaliJain (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ManaliJain:

Bulletin Times was added a long time back which has been removed now You removed it now because I put the issue here. Otherwise you always reverted if anyone removed it. Fyki, there is evidence for your disruptive editing and your attitude showing WP:OWN in the revision history of this article.

Kindly check your cited source You too first go check the source you have put for Gupta has played Shaurya. Fyki, it's neither reliable.

And please stop with this, you're talking about this show since months that Gupta shouldn't be mentioned related to the particular show, kindly bring reliable source(s) first and prove your point rather than attacking other editors with these baseless things. Why should I stop when I have a valid point. First you prove that it was indeed Gupta who played Shaurya with a reliable source. And I am not attacking you. You always ignored and reverted others contributions even when they were valid and your truth is coming out, you find that to be an attack. Are you out of mind?--117.230.25.64 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Bulletin Times cited on the page after you mentioned and removed it as a responsibility from my side. If you feel that reverting unconstructive or disruptive edits is some attitude or WP:OWN, as you mentioned above, then no dear, you mistook me! And what do you mean regarding "my truth is coming out"? Is there any conspiracy happening from my side that you said so? I'm volunteering to contribute to Wikipedia in making it better and constructive everyday, and as an editor, I do feel responsible enough to revert edit(s) which aren't constructive. ManaliJain (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got offended when I reverted one of your edits when you cited YouTube and Bollywood Bumble as sources, but as I explained you above, they were non-reliable and thus I removed the same. And you're behind me since then regarding the edit(s) I revert and that I make unconstructive edits and whatever, but I won't explain myself any longer because I've done that enough now and hence I won't be replying to you anymore. Thanks, happy editing! ManaliJain (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Bulletin Times cited on the page after you mentioned and removed it as a responsibility from my side. If you feel that reverting unconstructive or disruptive edits is some attitude or WP:OWN, as you mentioned above, then no dear, you mistook me! You never took the responsibility to read WP: OWN, did you? The attitude which you have been exhibiting in this article is what is called as WP: OWN.

Is there any conspiracy happening from my side that you said so? I'm volunteering to contribute to Wikipedia in making it better and constructive everyday, and as an editor, I do feel responsible enough to revert edit(s) which aren't constructive. I don't know if it is your conspiracy but in the article of Ankit Gupta, all your edits shows you are not just reverting unconstructive edits but forcefully exerting your will on every other editor. You have been simply reverting even constructive edits by every other editor to put only your edits which is an attitude of WP:OWN.

You got offended when I reverted one of your edits No I am offended with the way you are treating every other editors who contributes even constructively as shit in such a way only your will is exerted there. That's indeed WP:OWN.

And you're behind me since then regarding the edit(s) I revert and that I make unconstructive edits and whatever, but I won't explain myself any longer because I've done that enough now and hence I won't be replying to you anymore. Excuse me, I'm behind you with a very valid reason. You are forcefully trying to accredit Gupta for a role which he has not done and you have used a unreliable source for that but you won't allow anyone else to remove that or make constructive edits there because you want to boss around and that's being a part of WP:OWN. --117.230.25.64 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]