User talk:Dominicoz
 | This user is busy in real life due to not being allowed to edit Wikipedia while at work, and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia!I'm Suneye1, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts: |
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
Wikipedia is not an entertainment blog
[edit]Re: these changes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an entertainment blog. First, the content about "applause and acclaim" is not supported by the Deccan Herald source you provided. It only suggests that Vijay wanted to model his villain roles after work that Khan had done. This doesn't belong in an article about Khan, and the tone you submitted is totally incompatible with our policy on neutrality. We're not here to fawn over article subjects. The other content about friendships is relatively pointless and I don't see the relevance in an encyclopedia. I mean, seriously, Khan danced with Vijay? That's encyclopedic? Actors hobnob with other actors. This isn't a big surprise. Only if there is some context that makes it noteworthy, should it be included. For instance if two actors grew up together and helped each other build up their careers or something like that. Or if Kamal Haasan took on a mentorship role to Khan and helped him out in some way. But that would have to be explained. Simply saying that an actor likes another actor is meaningless.
Lastly, you need to familiarise yourself with our guidelines on reliable sources and WP:ICTFSOURCES so you can identify quality references. Indiaglitz is not sufficient. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Ghilli-film-poster1.jpg
[edit]
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Unconstructive changes
[edit]Hi there, re: this, a few issues.
- You added incorrect English grammar into a direct quotation. We typically shouldn't be refactoring direct quotations, but adding the word "and" as you did, messes up the grammatical structure.
- Please don't add unsourced content to articles.
- Please don't add that unsourced content in front of other references, as that can look like you're trying to claim that reference supports the information you are adding, which it does not, and which can look like vandalism.
- See WP:FILMRATING. We don't add film ratings unless there's something significant about them. People in Brazil have no idea how India's film ratings work, and such information, without context, is useless to a global readership. This is not the India-Only Wikipedia.
Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bigil. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bigil, you may be blocked from editing. Do not remove sourced content. Cehck this and other discussions. We have agreed to have a range. We do this for other film articles as well. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Different agencies list different grosses depending on their sources and most of the time the links will mention something like "have grossed more than 300 or 350", etc so we maintain this practice of ranging it from the lowest refernced number to the highest. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diff: [1] You are not a critical response aggregator. You don't get to decide whether a film was critically successful or not. Stick to what reliable published sources say explicitly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of the lede
[edit]Hi there, re: this edit, while the plot summary that the other user added was a bit wordy, the lede is supposed to summarise key information about the film, and it's not unreasonable to have a very brief summary. The content you restored, however, is mostly incoherent, and so it informs the reader far less well than the content the other editor added. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Not helpful
[edit]In this edit you have drawn a conclusion that Parasite was "unofficially adapted" from Minsara Kanna. First, "unofficially adapted" is somewhat of codeword for "stolen from", and second, just because someone accuses another filmmaker of plagiarism doesn't mean that the claim has any merit. By misinterpreting the source as you appear to have done, and making a declarative statement, you have introduced original research and potentially defamatory content into the article. Exercise better judgement moving forward, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
"Thalapathy 67" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Thalapathy 67. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Thalapathy 67 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |