User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

24 final boxoffice collection is 150 crore.

According to box office reports by websites( www.allindiaroundup.com/ www.galaxyreporter.com) 24 has collected more than 150 crore in its 100 days run at box office.The movie crossed 100 crore mark in just 18 days which was officially confirmed through twitter Athulnandu (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Naagin season 2

Can you plz tell me why you protected naagin season 2 page and its fast is incorrect Mouni Roy as shivanya singh/Shivangi Singh (Naagin) Adaa khan AS Shesha/Ruchika (Naagin).thanks Naaginseason 2 (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was protected due to a large amount of sockpupptry and vandalism. It looks like the changes you want have already been made. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 07:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There is also no more article on it, because it was created prematurely with no regard for WikiProject Television editing norms or community consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You might want to protect Naagin season 2. I turned it into a redirect, but don't know how long that will last. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 08:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Thanks. I salted it. This guy is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think any amount of explaining is going to help him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi! This is to inform you that some users are editing Naagin (TV series)#Cast section. Therefore I request you to please check these edits, and revert them to previous table. Thanks! M.Billoo2000 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi M.Billoo2000, I've left some notes at Talk:Naagin (TV series). The problem here, is that there are numerous editors who keep making changes to that page, who have no idea what a good article on a television program is supposed to look like. The table that you expressed a preference for is not suitable as a replacement for the list, because by its construction, it prevents the addition of information about who the characters are, what their relationships are to other characters, how the characters were conceived, how the actor got the role, etc. A cast table like that may be used to supplement an existing cast list, for an example, see List of Millennium characters where such a table is used to summarize which cast members appear in which seasons and in what capacity. But you will also notice that there is ample information about the characters written in prose, as well as information about casting, and so forth, and that that content is broken down into Main and Recurring characters. The editors at Naagin seem to be driven to over-simplify the cast list with as few words as possible, and that is absolutely not what an encyclopedia is for. Encyclopedias present information so that people who know nothing about Naagin can read it and figure out what the series is about, and that's how this article should be written. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

New article is being vandalized and blanked

I put this message on NeilN's talk page, he's an administrator, but he seems to only come on Wikipedia once in a while, maybe you can help. Since I saw a message on NeilN's page where you helped another editor.

This new article is being vandalized and blanked by unregistered users:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Cernovich_(author)

Could you please help put a stop to this? If the majority of editors vote to remove the article, fine, but it can't just be blanked out by people vandalizing Wikipedia. Please help, thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Neptune's Trident: I semi-protected it for a day to inspire discussion by the IPs and the SPA, because their edits are clearly disruptive. I don't see that any of these users were contacted by you with any attempt to discuss. It will be difficult to get admin assistance if you don't demonstrate that you've made good-faith efforts to discuss/warn of disruptive behavior. Admins like to see the dance... I know it's difficult with numerous IPs disrupting the article in such a short time span, though. Anyhow, hope this helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Neptune's Trident: I've warned the SPA. You might consider warning the IPs for blanking. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks again! Neptune's Trident (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Smoore95GAGA.

Hey Cyphoid! So I believe you may have been involved a while back with the aforementioned user, who has been known to vandalize several music-related articles and pages (He has a long history here). Anyway, an IP address (also from Kutztown, Pennsylvania) has been making edits that mirror what the original sock was banned for in the first place: removing Metacritic scores from album pages. Since the user seems quite defensive over the sockpuppetry claims despite being an IP address, if it looks like a duck, it likely is a duck. A previous administrator recommended taking the dispute to article talk pages, but he seems fairly distraught and not necessarily interested in communicating with me. And I must admit, I violated the 3RR rule which I clearly shouldn't have. Regardless, I was hoping you could perhaps help me out in a way and put an end to this. I know you're probably extremely busy; I do not want to inconvenience you. I have already filed an investigation page. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC).

I would just like to say that I did communicate with Carbrera on their talk page, and they have ignored me and continued to revert my edits. They asked for a page that backed up removing the MC score, and when I provided them with one, they still continued to revert. They are clearly not capable of listening to reasoning, and are acting under the assumption that I am a sock, which is unfair and extremely immature of them to do. If it gets proven that I am a sock, then they have every right to revert my edits, but since it hasn't been, they need to stop acting as if it has been proven. Just because they think I'm a sock doesn't mean I am one. And since they have violated the 3RR rule when a valid reason was given, shouldn't they be banned for a little while? 73.81.126.156 (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Not if they're reverting a de facto banned user. Indefinite blocks are not permanent, but so long as they are active, the person behind the account is not welcome to edit at Wikipedia, and an editor can revert any change a de facto banned user makes regardless of whether it was constructive or not. Articles created can be deleted, etc. Based on some of the info in the SPI archive, It's pretty clear to me that you have been blocked before, and I would consider you de facto banned. Your disruptive edits resulted in a range block of IPs at the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. That probably sucked for them. Had you taken the standard offer and requested that your original account (whatever it is) be unblocked, you might be allowed to edit here now. You're still free to take it, but you're going to need to stop wasting editors' time with the trolling, sockpuppeteering, and other nonsense. I'm sure you're a decent person who might be frustrated, but editing is not a right and there is a correct way to go about getting your editing privileges reinstated. WP:SO Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and on the issue of Metacritic ratings in the album ratings box, like your removal of content here, note the instructions at Template:Album ratings where we find a clear example that Metacritic ratings absolutely have a place in that summary box. If this is something that grinds your gears, then when/if your original account is unblocked, you can take it up with WikiProject Albums, but until that time, any removal of that content is disruptive, as it contravenes community consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello

When you said Yielding. I don't care.) by that if you meant you don't care whether or not my edit doesn't stay on the page, you not caring is not relevant to the article, or the facts about the article. Wikiman103 (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikiman103 I conceded as a show of good faith. You should still participate in discussion as there apparently is a dispute, and you unilaterally deciding that there is not a dispute doesn't make the dispute go away. So no, my not caring is not relevant to the article, it was meant to placate you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I see, but I wasn't unilaterally deciding that there is not a dispute, typically it's good to go by what reliable sources say about a person, place, or thing on a wikipedia article, not by a dispute. Wikiman103 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikiman103, yes, typically. But the fact that the "Japanese" datum doesn't appear in the reliable source you chose doesn't mean that the information is not valid or that it does not appear in other reliable sources. That is the crux of this issue. Have you read the discussion? The information about Japan also doesn't appear at AFI or BFI as I noted on the talk page, and that is why I brought it up on the talk page. I also noted on the talk page that there is a copyright record that includes Toei as a producer, and while the link doesn't work anymore, searching http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ for Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie, then locating copyright # PA0000836866, would show you that there is a legitimate question as to whether it is an American-Japanese co-production. If you're suggesting that the US Copyright Office is not sufficient as a source, that would be a weird position to take. If you have thoughts specifically about whether or not the film is or isn't an American-Japanese co-production, once again the discussion can be found here and you are encouraged to participate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam Philpot

Found another (older) one: Special:Contributions/Adam.philpot. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir Ah yes, thanks for that. Hmm. Not sure what to do here, since he stopped using that account and moved to the 912 account... I wouldn't consider it block evasion per se... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Mostly just FYI. Might be something to add to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Adam.philpot912? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Marchoctober

I can't believe he is so immature, despite claiming he has a full-time job and a life outside Wiki. He doesn't seem interested in continuing and is only further abusing admins. I guess he can be indeffed. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Some editors either consciously or subconsciously put themselves in these sorts of situations as a means of reinforcing persecution complexes. They make questionable decisions, then lash out at the people who try to reign them in. Sometimes it's more sporting to give them some extra rope. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Deception

This Viper18184 guy had made some serious deceiving edits, and its latest victim is you, sorry to say that. In your recent edit here in Pokkiri Raja (2010 film), you accidentally restored a spam content ([1], [2]) added by Viper18184. The link of IBTimes he added is a fake one created to deceive others. He "manually" created that (yes, typed it), to fake that there is a reliable source for his claim. This is not the first time he had done that, see this. --Charles Turing (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Charles Turing: Ah, thanks for the reminder. Forgot what his MO was. Please feel free to fix as necessary. Thanks for the note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, please keep an eye on user Viraledits. A vandalism only account similar to Viper18184.--Charles Turing (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Charles Turing: I've indeffed Viraledits. Their name alone is suggestive of a plan to disrupt, but these changes were the last straw on top of their POV commentary, unsourced edits and other weirdness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Scroll.in

I remember earlier asking you if it qualifies as WP:RS. To me it very much looks like one, and there have been no widely reported criticisms about it being possibly unreliable. Ditto for The News Minute. But most online news sites are underestimated by Wiki admins because of prejudice. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Need help

Hi Cyphoidbomb!

I have left a message on Talk:Baal Veer and a message on Talk:Dear Zindagi. Please, I need reply, and I think you can give a good reply.

Thanks! M.Billoo2000 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone is edit warring to include content sourced to the IMDb

I'm having some trouble with XSMan2016 (talk · contribs), who's edit warring to add unsourced and poorly-sourced content in The Pink Panther (2006 film). I previously warned him for changing sourced content without a source ([3], [4]). Notice the distributor is sourced to the American Film Institute; this is because people like him were constantly changing it without a source. He's now edit warring to change it based on what the IMDb says ([5], [6]). I explained to him that the IMDb is unreliable, linking to both WP:RS/IMDB and WP:RS. He doesn't seem to care. Can you please try to explain this to him or block him? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm doing this because it's true. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation distributed the film not in the US, but in all media. As shown here. [[7]]

And, Am I a bad person? Am I a vandalizer? No, I'd never vandalize anything. I've never did graffiti in my life. I've never done a crime either. I'm just adding what my eyes have seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@XSMan2016: XSMan2016 says he's autistic. Maybe I'm not explaining myself well enough. I don't know. I will try to be more explicit. Policies and guidelines define established rules and best practices on Wikipedia. WP:RS is a guideline about what websites we can use to source content. WP:USERG is a section of that guideline. It says, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites." Notice how it says the IMDb is user-generated, and user-generated sites are not allowed. That means the IMDb is not allowed. I am at a loss as to how I can make this any simpler or more explicit. Maybe Cyphoidbomb can explain it better. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. I cited the content to a reliable source, but you keep changing it. I have explained why you need to stop changing it and why the sources you've provided are disallowed. If you continue to change it despite this, I think you need to be blocked. Vandalism is not the only reason we block people. People who can't understand the rules or refuse to follow them also get blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see you'd already replied on XSMan2016's talk page. I probably should have posted this there, then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Petra László tripping incident photo dispute

Hello, there seems to be a dispute going on which photo is acceptable to use of this incident at the top of the article, the photo one editor wants to use and another does not is a picture of the actual tripping incident taking place, currently the original photo has been place back at the top of the article, the one of refugees walking in a long line:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra_László_tripping_incident

If you check the recent history of this article you will see the photo in question in a previous version of the article that was changed recently. The dispute is about whether it is acceptable to use it on Wikipedia. If you could help with this I'd appreciate it, thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/The 1000 Challenge (Indian cinema)

Dr. Blofeld has started this contest to improve articles related to Indian cinema. Do let him or me know by pinging either of us if your are interested in participating/helping out when you can. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

74.196.15.218

• 74.196.15.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP is back to editing after your previous blocks, and it appears to be the same person. Can you have a quick look? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

California's Gold

I see you had to block IP 24.125 again. This is one of those classic examples of an editor not understanding the definition of insanity! Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Yeah, it's odd. On the one hand there were many improvements here, but then there are odd choices, like reorganizing the categories into sort of alphabetical order, messing up the date range formatting, changing a section heading to Illness and death when the section only mentions the illness as part of the death, and oh yes the 59 total edits it took to make those changes. And then the California Gold problems again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Every so often, he does something worthwhile, then gets on a tangent that's totally disruptive. I do wish he'd learn to accept being edited and work collaboratively. Sadly, I don't see much hope of that. And, oh, the multiple edits to make a small change. Fifty-nine has got to be his record. ETA: Oh, and did you see someone just went in and mass-removed his edits? They weren't disruptive, so what was the point of that? --Drmargi (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:Removal of budget figures

Your concern is duly noted and I will not remove Indian Express links but will continue to remove any blog link for movie budgets. You and other editors are making the same mistake by using this bad estimate on something as important as a movie budget you are helping shape incorrect perceptions. Do Note that use of bad estimates opens up Wikipedia to legal action as and when it is important enough. Aneutralking (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aneutralking: If you have a compelling argument for why each of those budgets should not be considered valid, then expressing your concerns on the talk pages of the articles, or better, in some centralized place like WT:ICTF is the best approach. For instance, if Indian Express reported a ridiculously high number, like ₹500 crore for the budget of what would otherwise be a low-budget comedy, then you might have a case to be made for why it's probably a mistake or an inflation, but just unilaterally deciding that you don't like the number without any discussion is what's problematic. I raised a similar issue about Kabali, because Indian Express was responsible for reporting extraordinarily high figures that were almost certainly being manipulated by the producers. International Business Times described the high figures as "fake". So in that case, there was a legitimate concern to question the figures.

As for your worries about legal ramifications, that seems an unfounded concern. I've never heard of Wikipedia being held responsible for incorrect budget figures that were attributed to reliable sources. I can't even think of a legal principle under which a case could be made. Libel? If you could libel a movie, would film critics exist? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your point is valid unilateral removal was wrong .But yes for incorrect financial information such as budgets if someone wants they can issue a libel .Movie Critics don't comment on budget its trade analysts who do that and they usually have producers telling the number. If Indian Express was putting up these numbers on print they would have been sued and would have put up an apology but due to it being only present online you can get away with it. Unfortunately by choosing to highlight such pieces you help in giving them extra visibility. What need a wikipedia has to give budgets which are unreliableAneutralking (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aneutralking: Again, I think your fear of legal reprisal is far-fetched, unprecedented as far as I know (at least with regard to Indian cinema finances at Wikipedia) and not something we should be unnecessarily encumbered by. We present figures that we find in reliable sources, and when presented with figures that don't meet the wikt:smell test, then we present our concerns and data on the talk page and figure out what to do about it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Shirish Kunder is best known as a Farah Khan's husband.

Shirisk Kunder is noteworthy only after his marriage to Farah Khan in 2004. The movie industry employs hundreds of editors. The software industry in India employs millions. How many have the Wiki page. All news articles refer to Shirish Kunder as Farah Khan's husband. He became noteworthy because he married her, who already was well known in Bollywood. He also became noteworthy because she was much older than him. After that he became newsworthy because he was slapped by a famous actor--also reported in the news.

Why is that being suppressed. The rest of the page has POVs about his three movies. Wiki pages are not editorials. True. Therefore, it follows that Wiki pages are also not movie reviews. If it is a well know movie and that has some social or cultural relevance in how it affects society or perceptions then those competing views can be reported neutrally. However this entire page reads like one Bollywood press release. Is that what wiki does?

Please review the whole page and delete one sided POVs or editorial comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C7D7:E590:4948:665B:FE86:FEE5 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Your recourse when you disagree with something and you receive push-back is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, not make numerous edits across multiple IPs. Your changes, specifically when you introduce obvious editorial content under the guise of preventing POV is not helpful. It's also unclear to me why you're removing content about the subject's education that comes from a primary source. It's a fairly uncontroversial statement, the FB page is verified. You should take up your objections on the talk page. If you question the subject's notability, then you can familiarize yourself with WP:DIRECTOR, and our WP:GNG and if you can build a legitimate case that the subject doesn't meet any of the criteria, then you can nominate the article for deletion. But he's directed and written several movies, so I can't figure out on what legitimate basis you'd object to the existence of his article. Comparing a writer/director of numerous mainstream films with a person who works in software is apples/oranges. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea where you have stuck your head!. However I have to make clear that the material necessarily does have to pass the test of the Cyphoidbomb filter. Now you will accuse me of something or something else. What ever!

Let us get the facts straight here:

I am not posting over multiple IDs here.

The fact several folks have noted is there is no independent verification of his USC attendance. Such attendance should result in a diploma of some sort. That is can be verified from graduation or alum records. Self reporting a degree on one's facebook and then using that as a source violates WP:BLP policies. I would urge you to read it carefully or have someone explain it to you.

Secondly, several implies a fairly large number. Like the number of voies John Wayne has starred in. Shirish Kunder has directed exactly three movies. The last one or third one is a youtube short and does not count as a movie But we shall let that pass. So the fact is her did not direct and edit "a large number" or "several". The direction is merely three. While editing is a few or some. The finite number of all his works is listed on this page so one needs to go no further to verify that.

Shirish Kunder was married in 2004. His directorial venture came in 2006 and six years after that in 2012. There is a sequence in time and you want me to ignore that, huh!

What POV am I pushing?

The fact he was slapped is well reported, the fact he was accused of plagiarism and Youtube responded is well documented. The fact that his tweets are one-sided and well documented.

So it appears that in a effort to protect this man or serve as his PR agent, you want to abuse you registered status to suppress posts. I want an WP_ANI referral and request you revert the edits and get off this page.

I would also like an apology for you unsolicited and unwarranted comments!2602:30A:C7D7:E590:4948:665B:FE86:FEE5 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I missed one illogical argument you make to support your high handedness. I am not comparing software engineers and film directors. What you call apples to oranges. According to his page he belongs to a group called software engineers and then to a group called film editors. The first group numbers many millions, while the second group numbers many hundred. There are no Wiki pages dedicated to software engineers who are commonplace or film editors. They are simply not noteworthy. So how did a person who belonged to these two groups become noteworthy? Well by his marriage to Farah Khan, who was noteworthy and had a wiki page before this person did. That is the logic or factual evidence I presented. NOT a POV, or what you call apples and oranges. You really need to apologize, if you have integrity that is. WP: ANI2602:30A:C7D7:E590:4948:665B:FE86:FEE5 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you're talking about any of this on my talk page. The place to discuss it is on the talk page related to the subject where people who actually care about the subject can respond. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

180.191.111.224

I don't know if you're familiar with this user, but they're a vandal who inserts Volvo-related images on Liv and Maddie (see history and look for that IP range) in particular and vice-versa for Volvo-related articles. It got so bad that Liv and Maddie has had to be protected, and I and others have reported them to AIV multiple times, without even giving them warnings, and they were blocked with no issue. Well, my report today was rejected because of insufficient activity and lack of warnings and I was told to file an SPI and that AIV is not the place even though they've been reported there multiple times and blocked. However, since this is a long-term vandal, it doesn't really matter as they deserve no more warnings, and I was hoping to get a second opinion and was wondering if you would be willing to block. Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: It's always something... Semied the article for a month. Lemme know if there are any more issues. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, man! For reference, it was admin 78.26 who rejected the report. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Found some users with the sole intention of vandalism - Blade killer, Bhakthanan, 81.103.121.81, Moviesgokulam, Jinumovies. --Charles Turing (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Charles Turing: I got the named accounts, but I'm holding off on the IP. Some of these haven't been active recently, so there's not a huge benefit to blocking. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

XSMan2016

I found a source that includes some of what XSMan2016 wanted to include, so I cited that instead of the one I proposed. However, I think XSMan2016's latest edit kind of makes collaboration impossible. I quote: "From this moment on, we leave it like this. I have spoken." This would almost be comical if it weren't so frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: You went above and beyond in the patience department and I've got your back here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm kind of at a loss here. He just reverted me again. Still not a single post on the article's talk page, and still no reliable sources provided. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Editer 1.0

We might want to keep an eye on an editor called Editer 1.0. His account is new, and his edits have been largely vandalism. Right now they're all reverted, and there's a warning on his talk page, but the account bears watching if it keeps up. --Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Ain't nobody got time for that! I indeffed him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That'll handle it. Happy November! --Drmargi (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Likewise! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Shivaay Editing

You should discuss on talk page before reverting changes - I have to rectify your changes. Whatever you done is clear negative undertone. We don't include many reviews. However, this time I am not reverting all your content - but wiki page should be balanced. Check references of other movie reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Sorry about the accidental revert at Thoppil Joppan, I accidentally clicked the Rollback button when looking through Recent Changes. -Sonicwave ^(talk|c) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sonicwave32: Not a problem at all. Thanks for the note and the quick fix! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Sonicwave32: (Not fully sure if it is an issue, but) this piece of code (at your common.css) may help to hide the rollback link from your watchlist.

.mw-special-Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {
    display: none;
}

--Tito Dutta (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Indian films : Addition of a new source

Indian Express ,India Today Can these be added as reliable sources to make a change in the existing content here? —Ananth Sk (talk) 17:11 , 5th November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Indian films

I find the category overcluttered. Do you think it is best we start de-cluttering it, such that the category only remains a parent category for other Indian film-related categories? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Categories aren't something I'm very knowledgeable about. I'm not sure how much help I can be in this area, sorry. Maybe run your ideas past WP:CFD? I don't know. :/ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It was a diffusing category (meaning a category for categories) until Dr. Blofeld changed that. Maybe discuss with him and/or at CfD. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, what is your current opinion? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Like American films I think it's better to have one big A-Z list. It's not as if we don't also have categories for Tamil, Telugu films etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	A barnstar for you for your tireless contribution. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Thank you! But believe me, I am tired... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Why are you tired? You may contact me at titocis-india.org if needed. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Just blocked a friend of yours

User:SahibCollege55. On digging further, I think this is just a new farm that sprouted out of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Mohammad Khilji. I've deleted and reverted this one. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I think I thought it was Imtitanium. Problematic, incompetent, and has a crappy attitude on top of it. If memory servers me correctly anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion

Could you have a look at recent edits here: Draupadi? I reverted because the content narrating feminist view was unsourced. However I won't be making any revert here as I am looking for a second opinion. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Completely unsuitable for inclusion. Non-neutral editorial. No sources. I've left a detailed note on her talk page. If you have anything to add, or you want to watchlist it, feel free. (Obviously...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Bairavaa

Hey, I read you edit summary on your last edit concerning the trailer trailers. I approved it but wasn't aware the trailer info shouldn't be included, now I know, so thanks! ronaz^Talk! 10:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ronaz: Thanks for the note. From my perspective you did nothing wrong. The main duty of a reviewer is to spot and prevent vandalism. You're not required to be an expert in film articles or to get too involved in content management in your capacity as a reviewer. Keep up the good work! :) Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello

For the Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie article discussion. I didn't say I don't think the the US copyright service isn't sufficient, I honestly didn't check that source out, and I understand about discussing these things on the talk page. Wikiman103 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Highest grossing Indian films

If there is any problem with the use of "Regional films", then do some discussion with other editors. But, do something with that. Including all (highest grossing films, highest grossing films by year, highest grossing franchise) in the same list is making it a hotchpotch. Please, categorize it. Taniya94 (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Zindagi

Hi Cyphoidbomb! Please see this and this, and conclude what should be done. Thanks! M.Billoo2000 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Tehseenahmad91

Thank you for that block! For now, all his pages about potential sequels have been redirected to the first installment of the movie. However, it's not so clear that any of these films are even in pre-production so you could consider deleting all the redirects. Thoughts? Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Mahira Khan

Hi, Mahira Khan is my first cousin, and I know more about her then others. Since there are not so many references, so I used other references for these edits. And in Pakistan, journalists focus on Indian and Hollywood actors, rather then their own actors, so there are not so many news' about her. If you understand, then please reply me on my talk page. Ayeih Na (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed? Duh!

What a rude and uninformed person you seem to be. If you cannot provide sources to verify that someone is what he claims he is, then that is flawed, so is your understanding of the process. If someone has credits, then the movie will say that or there is verifiable record somewhere. In this case we find none. Therefore logically only Shirisha Kunder or one of his hatchet men (such as yourself) would have placed this information. Please apologize for your rudeness. You do not have to apologize for your flawed logic. you have to live that.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:DC69:72B4:CDEF:D6AB (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Avoid the personal attacks or you're quickly going to find yourself unwelcome to edit at Wikipedia. I described your logic as flawed, because it describes something you've done, not who you are. Re: this, as I've explained, a film can be used as a source of uncontroversial information like credits. If you're saying that you've seen those projects and there is no mention of the subject's involvement in those roles, then you should open a discussion on the talk page and explain that, and then if consensus exists, the content can be removed. It's not that difficult. But you making strange declarations like "IMDB gives no credit to Shirish Kunder for any of these claims. If this information is not public, then it must have been placed there by Shirisha himself." just isn't how we do business. IMDB is not considered a reliable source anyway. WP:RS, WP:RS/IMDB, WP:TVFAQ... Regardless, you need to start discussing changes if you feel so strongly about the subject. In many cases I'd probably agree with you, but I don't think you have full objectivity here. I may also press for a topic ban if this keeps up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You can press for what ever you like. That is your choice. I think I have every right as the next person to point out flaws in material. I don't believe that registered Wiki users (Whatever names you give your selves barn star or cookie or what ever! Seems like role playing in fantasy land)have the sole right. You may have etiquette and or ways and means; but, that means nothing to me, as I live in the real world. Instead of wasting your time and energy picking fights, you should simply follow the trail that I followed to see that there is no source for those three categories. So if there is no verifiable source then how did this information come by? It could have only been placed by someone who has a vested interest in the matter. The most probable source would be the person who the page is about. I have done some forensics, and have located at least one contributor from Mumbai who has edits only two pages in three years Shirish Kunder and one of his movies. Now that seems like a pattern. If you cannot see that from your own wiki log, then maybe you are interested in throwing you weight around because of whatever title you accord yourself. This clique like mindset has to be eliminated from wiki. If you are fair, then first investigate if those three sources have a verifiable source, then have the decency to admit it and apologize. It takes someone with integrity to do that. Thank you2602:30A:C7D7:E590:DC69:72B4:CDEF:D6AB (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologize for, so don't hold your breath. Your approach to that article has been extraordinarily disruptive. FYI, there's an WP:ANI case open about your editing. You should consider responding to it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hard Work Appreciation

I really appreciate the hard work you've done here. I imagine your 2016 on Wikipedia is better than mine. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Cyphoidbomb.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Designated Survivor

I hate to bug you again, but... We've got an editor, Robberey1705 who persists in adding a secondary market international distributor to the infobox for the show. He's been reverted by a couple editors, but persists in reverting, and isn't using the talk page. I jumped into the fray this morning, and have given him an edit warring warning on his talk page, but that didn't seem to have any effect; he immediately reverted my edit. He's determined he's right. Would you want to have a little chat with him, or is AN3 a better choice? He's staying just this side of 3RR so far. --Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

He's on the talk page, finally, after leaving a fairly incoherent post on my talk page first, but very aggressive. --Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: I've dealt with him before as you can see from his talk page history. He's had a history of poor sourcing, failing to discuss, and responding with disproportionate frustrated responses. I'll look into it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I glanced at his TP history, and it didn't look promising. That's why I bugged you. I'll leave it in your capable hands. And he just left me a retaliatory warning. That's king of usual in these situations, though. --Drmargi (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I am here to offer help. I also have had problems with this user, who changed their username a few months ago. I wouldn't mind helping if it is needed. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: What was his previous user name? He doesn't seem familiar, but I might have crossed paths previously. --Drmargi (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Their previous username was User:Sarahcarterslover. It redirects to their new username. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I remember that user well. --Drmargi (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh riiiiiight. I remember that name. I remember them for shouting "violation!" in their edit summaries often. I've left a fairly thorough and reasonable (I think) note on their talk page. Cross your fingers. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the old coconuts are still working ;P In all, yes that person who shouted in every edit summary about "violations" and vandalism with the narrative that they are right no matter what. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

They seem somewhat more subdued, at least per the discussion on their talk page. It might be a good opportunity to AGF and start anew. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, somewhat, but they're still stridently insisting "I am right, and everyone else is wrong, and doesn't know what they're talking about." That's not hopeful. --Drmargi (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, their OWN behaviour is always there. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

WP: DISRUPT @Cyphoidbomb has not provided sources for Sections 4.8, 4.9. WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION

@Cyphoidbomb seems to be the maintainer of the page Shirish Kunder. Request other editors to take over as the edits individual is making is in violation of WP:DISRUPT and WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. Individual does not provide sources for sections, this person is the only one privy to that information, therefore it follows that this person must be the one maintaining the page. Also violates WP of neutrality. and WP:CIVILITY. A couple of WP:ANI have been filed. Thank you.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:B8EE:9644:8C6F:FF93 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Take it to ANI. This nonsense doesn't belong on my talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

What about your nonsense seeing promos designer in credit crawl. Cite it now. Sure this belongs here, if you feel it is nonsense, that is your perception and your problem. Is it not like 3.00 am in the morning in India? Saaaad2602:30A:C7D7:E590:B8EE:9644:8C6F:FF93 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Take it to ANI. I don't need to have a fruitless discussion with you in two different places. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

For your collection

		The Purple Barnstar
		Good grief Cyphoidbomb. Between the above and the AN/I thread you certainly deserve this. For the record to any and all concerned the invective and accusations are FALSE FALSE FALSE. I hope that you have a pleasant weekend in spite of this. Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 22:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ha haa! Greatly appreciated, MD. Thank you. Man, what a time suck. My weekend shall remain unfettered! Yours too, I know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't be biased

Hi, I wanted you to know that the controversies which I have posted on Naagin's Wikipedia page are not based on my opinions. Actually the controversies which I have posted are based on the real facts about 'Naagin Tv Series'. So if you you remove what i have posted then i am not being biased, you are, because you are removing anything that does not praise the show. Read all the content before removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzaroon95 (talk • contribs)

@Kzaroon95: See your talk page. The content you've submitted is completely inconsistent with MOS:TV and constitutes original research. It is wholly unencyclopedic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop Your Biasness Please !

Kindly, please first read the whole content which i posted on Naagin's wikipedia page before coming to a conclusion that i am being biased or you are. The things that i posted are not opinions they are facts. Almost every celebrity has separate section for his controversies so why can't i create a separate section for controversies.So what do you want? that we just praise the show. Is the Wikipedia for praising shows or giving information. If we can not give controversies of the show on its Wikipedia then why do other celebrities have a separate section for there controversies example Salman Khan controversies. Then why don't you go and remove all of the controversies from other pages as well. Stop your biaseness and let me do what i am doing because they are not my opinions they are facts and if you do not have knowledge about the show then it is not our fault. We know about the show much more than you do. So please stay away from naagin's page and let me do my job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzaroon95 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kzaroon95: I've explained this on your talk page. Your ruminations and rhetorical questions are tonally inconsistent with an encyclopedia, and they contravene MOS:TV#Things to avoid. Your personal observations and complaints have no place in the article per WP:OR. And I'm going to ask you this one more time: please stop posting comments anywhere other than at the bottom of the talk page, and sign your comments with four tildes. (~~~~). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop Your Biasness Please !

Try to understand that i am not giving my own opinions . I am just telling facts. I have seen the show so i know much more than you do. So please kindly read what i am saying properly. If it is not allowed to give controversies then why do we have controversies on celebrities Wikipedia pages just answer this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzaroon95 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What I am telling you is far more important than what you are telling me, because what I am telling you represents community consensus, and it is my job to enforce community consensus. On the contrary, what you are telling me represents an opinion from someone who has no experience editing at Wikipedia. Again, I don't fault you for not knowing the rules, but when someone who is far more experienced says, "hey, there's a problem here", maybe, just maybe they happen to know more than you do. Your ANALYSIS contravenes WP:OR and MOS:TV#Things to avoid. Read those pages and try to absorb some of it. Also, please keep the discussion on your talk page. It's too confusing having to respond in two different places, and you are more likely to benefit from this discussion than I am. Respond here please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop Your Biasness Please !

If you are not a reliable source then why are removing what i am posting on Naagin's wiki. If they in actually are my own opinions not facts then why is not anyone else removing it. If anyone else also feels they they are my opinions then someone else would remove it too. The things that i posted are facts and they are talked on different websites, youtube videos etc. As i said before that you do not have knowledge about the show so you would not understand. So if anyone else also feels that what i have posted is wrong then he will remove it too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzaroon95 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop responding on my talk page. The appropriate place to ask your questions is on your talk page, where the bulk of the very detailed, very thorough information I've provided is located. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Another day, another Ishq Hawa Mein sock. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: At this rate, it might be easier just to vet who isn't a sockpuppet of X or Y. I swear... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There are days when I'm nearly convinced that it's all one person behind all socks having a great big laugh at our expense.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Huell Howser

Just a heads up: our Arizona IP appears to be back at Huell Howser, block evading using IP12 accounts. I've reverted a couple sets of edits as block evasion, but it may be time for semi-proaction if it keeps up. --Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Thanks, I'll keep an eye out. I just mass rolled-back a bunch of their recent edits. I have a feeling this is going to be irritating and difficult. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and of course so long as that other IP, 24.251.24.185, is blocked, feel free to revert away if you feel so inclined. There's no 3RR worry. Obviously if you think they improved something you're not required to revert, but you're also not required to give a shit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I mass reverted a bunch of stuff in the articles about Rocky Horror and Tim Curry. For knows where else he'll jump, and using how many IPs. I agree: irritating and difficult captures it nicely. --Drmargi (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Drmargi I have a tool that's basically a one-click deal, so if it gets too overwhelming, let me know and I'll handle it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Will do. These were all in a line, and largely nonsense, so they weren't a hassle, but I've seen others that were. You're a pal! --Drmargi (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: - Looks like MisterAnthony might be one of the IP's previous accounts. Just mentioning it FYI. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw that last night, and was thinking of mentioning it. Did we identify another account? I can't think whether we did or not. --Drmargi (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: I don't recall. :( Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm thinking of Robbery/Sarah down a bit. And while I have you, have you ever dealt with an editor named Twobells? --Drmargi (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Name doesn't sound familiar, no. I work a lot more in Indian film/television crap these days. It's an area of the encyclopedia that needs far more babysitting, so much of my time is spent dealing with problems in that arena rather than in western stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Bhishoom

I have a feeling he is a sockpuppet of Padmalakshmisx due to his editing style and brief edit summaries. Could you please do something about this? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: That thought occurred to me as well once I got a whiff of the editing style. I need as much help as I can get, so yes, I can do something about it, but I also need your input in the form of diffs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not usually so good at that. I suspected the user only based on what I have listed here. The rest only a die-hard investigator can analyse. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for cleaning up all of those movie articles. It must be a serious pain with how messy some of them are, and I appreciate you taking the time to do it. I'd have done it myself, but I probably would go nuts as I don't have the patience, haha. NOTNOTABLE (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi NOTNOTABLE, thanks for your note, I appreciate the praise. Yeah, it really sucks. Indian film articles in particular are plagued by a number of issues. One Indian user once explained that there are a lot of regions that are getting access to the internet, and many of these people are just not highly-educated. The more irritating aspects involve paid editing rings that exist to promote films and TV series, inflate or deflate financial figures (depending on who's paying them), aaaand sockpuppets, vandals and other irritants. And oh yeah, I love the phrases "the film declared all-time blockbuster status", "super hit", "flop", "failure"... Uck. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was mostly referring to the people who simply promoted film/TV articles until the article raved about them, as the people who simply aren't educated enough to know English well enough are good faith and aren't too bad. Didn't know about the people who took it the other way, however. Huh. NOTNOTABLE (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Angrej

There is no point of adding co producer in the template as its an unknown tag for template and it wont be visible.RG | (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Godara.rahul: A valid statement, but in both edits[8][9] infobox parameters like |film_name=, |image_size=, |border= keep getting moved to the bottom of the infobox. The image formatting typically appears at the top which is where editors will expect to find them. It's possible that this is a problem created by the Visual Editor that you are using--Visual Editor is buggy--but you should please double-check your changes to see if you're accidentally causing other problems by clicking "Show preview" and "Show changes" before committing the changes to the article. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

While doing visual edit the template rearranges itself. When seeing it may look like the image is at the top but in template it is not. RG | (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with an SPI

Hey Cyphoid. Joseph is back. After the user TheGoodLion was blocked, and new account immediately started up, FernandoDC and it seems to most definitely be Joseph. The SPI was fill out (here), but there might be a back log and Fernando is still editing, across many articles, which is an issue, given what they've been blocked for. Anything you could do to help? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:  Done - Have a good one, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Per your comments in closing the SPI, any articles to keep an eye on would be films still in the box office and/or opening in the coming weeks. The point being, the articles you may have on your watchlist now, they may have moved on from those articles. Would it be beneficial to drop a note at the film project too about this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, might as well let them know. I don't do a whole lot of editing in western films anymore. There was a much bigger problem in Indian cinema, so I'm gnoming over there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I'll drop a line at WT:FILM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Unprotect

Why protect the page Pulimurugan. ? There was no disruptive editing.--2405:204:D008:1DC6:4C5:A34F:BE0A:18AE (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

For failure to seek consensus on talk page as is required per WP:BRD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So I got my answer on that. Now, on what basis you removed that content ?. One editor claimed this and removed a sentence based on his own original research. How should we know what he is telling is correct ?. It was he who should have opened discussion (anyway I am going to start it now). Based on an "original" claim, the content should not be removed. If the editor have a contradictory evidence or any materiel supporting the claim, it is wise to remove the content until consensus is reached, but this case its otherwise. 2405:204:D008:1DC6:4C5:A34F:BE0A:18AE (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. What about restoring the content. It's the result of the discussion that decides the removal/alteration of the content in this case. 2405:204:D008:1DC6:4C5:A34F:BE0A:18AE (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You're putting the cart before the horse. I think this will be quickly resolved, and considering I think Plutonium might have misinterpreted the content, the content stands a good chance of being restored. What I can't allow is the back-and-forth in the article, so the status quo will temporarily remain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I've opened a discussion for the both of you. I don't know why it's so difficult to do that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You can unprotect the page. The issue is resolved. 2405:204:D187:EAC:F1E7:990B:EFC6:3CD6 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

A non-cooperative user

Thertho Bose (talk · contribs) seems to either not understand that there is a need to provide rationale behind his controversial actions of reordering and adding unsourced names to cast-list of films and telly-serials or is simply nonchalant to respond to any query addressed to him on his talk page.Maybe he mixes in some good edits now and then but I think that shall not insulate him from participating with other editors in building consensus.It's really problematic when someone goes on with an attitude that essentially speaks-Well, I am right and the rest of the world is wrong.I think maybe a short block will do more good than harm.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 14:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@ARUNEEK: I strongly feel that he will wind up blocked again. If he continues the reordering without explaining, please let me know. I blocked him yesterday, but had to unblock since I discovered that his edit was (probably coincidentally) consistent with community guidelines. It seemed a bit heavy-handed to keep him blocked if he was actually right. But the burden on establishing that he is editing a according to community rules and double checking his work should not fall on other editors. He should be explaining "The title sequence of the show credits Doe, Smith, Jones, and Singh in that order." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, probably the coincidence only saved him!Anyway, do you find any strong semblance between his edits and that of Tahia Akter Chowdhury (talk · contribs).Same adding of unsourced names to film-cast, lack of any reply/adherence to comments on talk pages, almost same field of edits-majority of both of their edits being Bengali films and telly-serials.I will put my money that there's something fishy there!.After all,thanks for your quick reply.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@ARUNEEK: There isn't much overlap between the two and Tahia tends to make mobile edits, where Bose does not. So it's possible, but no smoking gun yet. I'll look at it in more detail later. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Zindagi

Hi Cyphoidbomb! I have left a message on here, and waiting for a good reply... Hope for your kind response. Thanks! M. Billoo 07:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb! Please warn Hcns (I am notifying the user too), who is using "junk" language in the edit summary of article. And in my point of view, the user has removed the content which might have been reviewed by you. I think Hcns is trying to act like an Administrator, or something above Admin power. Hope for your strong response against Hcns, Thanks! M. Billoo 18:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot

I want to add plot in Pulimurugan. Current plot is partial and incomplete. I saw the tag. The excess plot details will be trimmed by editors in the coming days. Moreover, the film do not follow a straight narration, there are lots of flashbacks and non-linear story. Currently the plot is written in its direct story order, if it is written in the original non-linear style, it will be much longer and breaks the continuity. 2405:204:D30B:CC6E:64A1:4EFE:E931:8B0F (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for your note. I've undone my reversion so you can work on the plot, but any effort you can make to compress it and remove extraneous details that don't materially improve our understanding of the plot would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The current plot (852 words) is incomplete and partial. Trimming that version to 700 word will make it difficult to add the rest of the plot as it will further increase the length. But if the complete plot is added, the whole plot can be trimmed to 700 words. I have prepared a full plot with 946 words, will trim it in coming days. 2405:204:D30B:CC6E:64A1:4EFE:E931:8B0F (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you. If the entire plot of Star Wars can be done in 650 words (what with nerds around the world wanting to add details about their favorite scenes...) then I have faith it can be done here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I have trimmed the plot to my best. Maybe someone can trim it better. Now its at 729 words, and I have removed the tag, hope you don't mind. You can re-add it if it still has problems. By the way, can you protect that page. Recently some editors are regularly vandalizing the box office numbers. 2405:204:D30B:CC6E:C4FD:CBB9:624:D34A (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

IP User From February

You know that user you blocked back in February for edit warring on Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends? Well, it back and is vandalising Sullivan Bluth Studios. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: I've left the user a note on their talk page, but please take a stronger leadership role (since you are an experienced editor) and open discussion yourself on article talk pages. Nobody's gonna die if the wrong information/undesirable version exists for a few days. If you open discussion, invite them via talkback (IPs don't have watchlists, so they don't necessarily see the talk page posts) and they refuse to participate, your argument will always be stronger. Give it a shot. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Silverscreen.in

Could you please dig deep and see if this site passes WP:RS? I know it conducts many exclusive interviews, but I can't find any third-party sources about it. Besides, I got a job offer there, but my joining of it becomes meaningless if it fails RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: It's going to take more than just me. From their About page, they are a startup. Startups don't meet the established reputation aspect of WP:RS, which I find very important. An issue that does need discussion on a community scale, is how we can use sources that are not "reliable". Like, if the community dislikes IndiaGlitz or FilmiBeat, does that mean we can't use any of their info? If they print an interview, or they publish a film release date, maybe those could be used, since it's not likely they're totally writing bullshit interviews or faking release dates. Some sites (probably most sites -- and after Kabali, I don't like Financial Express/Indian Express) we might not trust for box office figures because of how polluted the waters are on financial figures, but for less-controversial data, maybe some of these wonky sites are fine? That's worth discussing in a wider arena. Also, if you start working there, congrats! You're a talented editor/writer and I know you'll do well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi C. I saw you edit summary and I wanted to tell ya that yep adding pings to a previously saved post does not work. Someone explained that simply resigning is read by Wikisoftware as changing the time stamp which does not activate the ping (or something like that anywho) so you need to perform a whole new post. I'll go ahead and ping @Kailash29792: for you with this edit. Cheers and enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeaaaah, I appreciate the note. I've known that for a while but was more into just finishing the post and pretending that a ping would occur even when I knew it wouldn't. Thanks for the assist, MD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, thank you very much for your advice. So silverscreen.in articles attributed to external reliable sources also become reliable, right? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Meh. My preference is to try to quote the original source, since a source that regurgitates another isn't doing any new fact-checking. If we don't like Andhraboxoffice.com, but TOI quotes Andhraboxoffice, are we getting any strength out of that? Andhra is a blog, we don't know if it's reliable. TOI repeats the data, but do we assume any data was confirmed independently? I don't think that a source repeating another source becomes a reliable source. It's the independent fact-checking, the reputation for accuracy, and the clear editorial principles that make a source reliable. Not sure if that helps you or not. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Basic Criteria Doubt

Hello @Cyphoidbomb, I had a doubt. I wanted to know that what is the basic criteria for creating an actor's article on Wikipedia. He/she should have worked in how many shows (minimum no. Of shows) to be eligible to be added on Wikipedia as an actor? Because sometimes on Wikipedia I have noticed that some articles of actors on Wikipedia get deleted under the criteria of being non notable and other things. Can you please help me with this? Regards, YAP123456 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi YAP123456, thanks for asking. The relevant criteria is WP:NACTOR. The subject should have multiple significant roles in major films/TV shows, etc. As a rule I would probably consider a recurring character on a TV series, not just a one-time appearance, as a significant role. In films, starring roles would be ideal, but if they've played significant supporting characters (not just "Pizza guy" or "Cop #2", but real beefy roles) that might be fine as well. You should probably also keep our general notability guideline in mind, which says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If the media is writing significant articles on the subject (not passing mentions, not interviews) then that will boost the notability. Really it all boils down to what other editors feel are multiple significant roles. We're not in a hurry to create articles on people, and Wikipedia too often gets used as a social networking site and as a promotional site for upcoming actors. The bar should be pretty high for inclusion, so I'd say when in doubt, wait. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ae Dil Hai Mushkil

Hi Admin!

For Dear Zindagi, you've told that "critic's response" should be meaningful encyclopedic context and idea should be organized in some clear way. But here in Ae Dil Hai Mushkil, there is mentioned a long comment of a critic, what to do? As I've tried for Dear Zindagi, I would also try for this if you permit me.

Hope for your kind reply, Thanks! M. Billoo 19:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Tried to update, waiting for your response. Thanks! M. Billoo 18:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

67.218.18.234 again

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pamelyn_Ferdin&diff=prev&oldid=752886499 MartinSFSA (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@MartinSFSA: Blocked 3 months. If they start up again, let me know. Without speculating about them too much, based on some of their prose additions, I believe they lack the appropriate skills to edit here constructively. The bulk of their edits are indistinguishable from vandalism as a result. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Description "This is a vandal post" was doubtless meant for me, but seems a fair summary of their work. MartinSFSA (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Creating Godha (film)

Godha is a 2016 upcoming Malayalam film. It has almost finished shooting and has many references for the same. I would like to create its page, but the title has been blocked by repeated earlier deletions and requires an administrator to open it. If you could do that, it would be very helpful. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The page - Godha_(film) PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Cyphoidbomb

Hey, Cyphoidbomb i have become an honest editor and one thing i want to tell you that i am Mriduls.sharma. Please give me a second chance or block me i am sorry i came here because all these articles which Krimuk90 left were becoming outdated and vandalized. I came here to become a sincere editor but i know i am telling the truth to you will block me but i just need to tell truth because i want some indian to take care of all bollywood and especially plot of all films. If you want to give me a chance then accept as L.D. White or block me and revert all my edits. But please call Krimuk90 back on this encyclopedia he/she is a brilliant editor and i have given his/her password back which is krimuk123.I am sorry i have lied but i have no option . I have reverted all vandal edits of ips on befikre article and made it protected for one month. Regards as new name L.D. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way my orignal account Mriduls.sharma is compromised you have accept me as L.D. White. Regards L.D. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Undo Dandupalya

Hai! I have cited with genuine reference. how it would be puffery. As per ur perception if u would be considered it would be exaggerated. Then almost article have the puffery. What do u say for this. Wiki is there for real updates. Could u find any weasel words in my edits?. Am not more familiar to wiki. As I seen a long time it has their real facts in their page with reference. Do u justify yourself for removing my edits. Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.162.218 (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to teach you the difference between facts and opinions, which is what this boils down to. That's why we have schools. Maybe some kind people at the help desk can assist you with understanding why this stuff, which includes completely inappropriate POV phrases about "overwhelming critical appraise", "mega comeback", "critically and commercially a big success", "brought back Pooja Gandhi into stardom", "immense critical appraisal by the both critics and the audience" are not suitable for inclusion. I would think the matter would be overwhelmingly-mega-immensely-obvious, but apparently I'm wrong. There are other significant problems with the English grammar as well, by the way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have seen so many such words in articles, what u have mentioned above. Leave it and never expected such answer from u. It's not a way of answering to new editor's. U have a rights to fix the problems in our edition bt u didn't like. Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.160.53 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Lots of articles that contain numerous problems. Copying problems from one article to another article doesn't make either problem acceptable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your work towards making Wikipedia a better place Jupitus Smart 04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Box office section

I don't know what's the problem with this edit. See Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu, Jab Tak Hai Jaan, these and other Hindi GA articles' box office section are written like this only. If you think, box office section is not written like what I'm editing, then I think you must help me how to write it. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Smart LION: In order for me to answer this, I need to know that you understand the difference between objective language and subjective language. Do you? If so, maybe you can explain how we can quantify "decent opening"? Please try to tell me what that means in objective language, if you can. What context are we given in the form of data and comparisons to other films that would help us understand what "decent" means? Or "average"? This is all just shit that's copied from the trades with little academic focus. Might as well describe films as "all time super hits" and actors as "handsome" or actresses as "gorgeous". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how some of these articles pass GA, to be honest with you. Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu has a track list in the middle of the article as if we're selling CDs or something. How is a track list more important that the film's critical response or financials? Unbelievable. Even weird phrases like "The film features Imran Khan and Kareena Kapoor in lead roles" as opposed to "The film stars Imran Khan and Kareena Kapoor" just seem so strange to pass as GA. Or the "under his banner" slang, or this clunky sentence: Originally slated to release during the fall of 2011, Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu eventually released on 10 February 2012, to positive critical notice, with major praise directed to Kapoor and Khan's performance, and proved a moderate commercial success." Oh well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this OK?

Dear Zindagi had a decent opening at the box office. The film opened well in multiplexes in Mumbai, Mysore, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, while in North India, it had low collections. The film managed to collect ₹8.75 Cr. on its opening day. However, Dear Zindagi showed good growth in the weekend. The numbers grew as Dear Zindagi collected ₹11.25 Cr. and ₹12.50 Cr. on its second and third day respectively, bringing the first weekend collections to a total of ₹32.5 Cr. In the weekdays, the film had a continuous fall with every passing day of the first week. The film carried a total of ₹46.75 Cr. in its first week. As of 4 December 2016, the film earned a total of ₹79.31 crore domestically and ₹41.10 crore from overseas, making its total worldwide collections to ₹120.41 crore.

Dear Zindagi released earlier in North America on account of the Thanksgiving weekend holidays. The film on its first day collected ₹1.19 Cr. from 127 screens in the United States and ₹8.29 lacs in Canada from 16 screens. In the extended two day, the film collected about ₹1.58 Cr. at the North America box office.

This should now be OK. This shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 06:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Mr. Smart LION Are you asking me a question or making a declaration? Why don't you run the prose past WT:FILM and see what they think about it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)