User talk:Athulnandu
July 2016
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ghajini (2005 film) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ghajini (2005 film) was changed by Athulnandu (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.943986 on 2016-07-29T20:21:37+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Recent edit to Nanban (film)
[edit]
Your edit to Namban (film) broke the infobox, so I reverted it. Please note that you can only use certain defined fields in a template (including an infobox).
Thank you and happy editing! BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016
[edit] Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Maattrraan. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diff: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Athulnandu, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Athulnandu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
Multiple comments, reliable sources, etc
[edit]Hi there, it's not very helpful when you post multiple comments on talk pages that are basically duplicates of themselves as you've done here and here and here.
Comments copied from Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films
|
|---|
1)According to sources and official confirmation 24 grossed 156crore in 26 days(www.skylarkpictures.in, www.galaxyreporter.com, www.moviereviews.in, www.thecourierdaily.com, www.gackhollywood.com , www.onlookersmedia.in, www.iluvcinema.in) 2)according to confirmation made by Wikipedia theri grossed 175 crores,sivaji only 128 crores,vedalam 126 crores,kaththi124 crores,singam2 122 crores(www.Wikipedia.org) Athulnandu (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1)Kabali- 600crore+ (to be confirmed) 2)Bahubali- 600crore(Wikipedia.org) 3)Endhiran- 253crore(Wikipedia.org) 4)I - 239crore(Wikipedia.org) 5)Vishwaroopam-220crore(wikipedia .org) 6)Dhasavatharam-200crores (Wikipedia.org) 7)thuppakki-180crore (www.galaxyreporter.com) 8)theri -175crore(Wikipedia.org) 9)24- 156crore+ (www.galaxyreporter.com, www.onlookersmedia.in, www.thecourierdaily.com) 10)lingaa- 154crore(Wikipedia.org) 11)sivaji the boss-128 crore (Wikipedia.org) 12)vedalam-126crore(Wikipedia.org) 13)kaththi-124crore(Wikipedia.org) 14)singam2-122crore(Wikipedia.org) 15)kanjana2-117crore Athulnandu (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1)Kabali- 600crore+ (to be confirmed) 2)Bahubali- 600crore(Wikipedia.org) 3)Endhiran- 253crore(Wikipedia.org) 4)I - 239crore(Wikipedia.org) 5)Vishwaroopam-220crore(wikipedia .org) 6)Dhasavatharam-200crores (Wikipedia.org) 7)thuppakki-180crore (www.galaxyreporter.com) 8)theri -175crore(Wikipedia.org) 9)24- 156crore+ (www.galaxyreporter.com, www.onlookersmedia.in, www.thecourierdaily.com) 10)lingaa- 154crore(Wikipedia.org) 11)sivaji the boss-128 crore (Wikipedia.org) 12)vedalam-126crore(Wikipedia.org) 13)kaththi-124crore(Wikipedia.org) 14)singam2-122crore(Wikipedia.org) 15)kanjana2-117crore Athulnandu (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC) |
See all that? That's a lot of the same stuff, needlessly posted three times within an hour. When you post talk page comments, or even make changes to articles, you should be using the "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons to double-check your posts before saving them. That way you can sort out any of your mistakes before committing them to the page.
Now, in addition to that, you should familiarize yourself with our reliable sources guidelines so that you know what kinds of references are suitable for inclusion. As I have explained to you at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films and Talk:24 (2016 film), galaxyreporter.com, onlookersmedia.in, and thecourierdaily.com are blogs. We don't care what blogs have to say, because anyone with an internet connection can start a blog and call himself an expert. Other unacceptable sources are any user-generated source which would include Wikia.com, IMDb, discussion forums, unverified Twitter accounts, even Wikipedia itself. We only care what reliable, published, mainstream sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about any given subject. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and this is borderline disruptive. On 3 August you posted yet a convoluted series of attention-hungry requests asked that editors change the financial information at 24 (2016 film). I was kind enough to respond to all three, and you were even pinged to the discussion, so you no doubt received a notification that I had responded. Yet two days later you ignored my responses, and the very obvious embedded note in the article to post a value that was supported by a blog. This doesn't demonstrate good-faith editing. Please don't do this in the future. Note also that competence is required at Wikipedia. If you do weird things like flooding talk pages with multiple frantic shouty messages, people are going to question whether or not you're capable of participating here. If you wish to reply, feel free to do so below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This is another example and constitutes soapboxing. If you want to post a single, well-thought-out comment that requests specific changes and is supported by reliable sources, feel free to do so, but posting four rambling comments with no sources just comes across as you standing around shouting for no reason. Future comments like this will be deleted as soapboxing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This link doesn't resolve, and even if it did, Desiretrees (correctly spelled) is a blog, and thus, is unsuitable as a reference per WP:UGC. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Boy, as I keep encountering more of your edits, I find more problems indicative of a lack of good judgment. Here you inexplicably get rid of the |runtime= parameter and contents, and replace it with a gross figure supported by a garbage reference. Not helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
August 2016
[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Nanban (film). Diff: [2] The link to spicyonions.com does not resolve, but even if it did, I doubt "spicyonions" is a reliable published source with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as is required of you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Re: your comments at my talk page, I have already explained this to you on your talk page in great detail. Galaxyreporter.com is a blog and so is allindiaroundup.com. We do not use blogs as references, since anyone can start a blog and publish whatever he wants. We only care what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about anything. That means major news sources, newspapers, magazines, etc. Your edit at 24 was also problematic because you didn't provide a new reference anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and just to prevent confusion, we also don't use primary sources (claims made by producers, directors, distributors, actors or anyone directly involved in the film) because people involved in the film have a motive to inflate or deflate numbers. So if the director tweets to "confirm" 150 crore or whatever the value is, that is of no use to us. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)