Hi there, re: this edit at List of highest-grossing Indian films, though I know you meant well, we don't use primary sources (a film's director/producer/distributor/actor or anyone who is directly involved in the film) for controversial content like financial data. A director would have every reason to inflate the box office figures (ex: because he wants to make more money on his next film). Only financial figures that are derived independently of the producers/directors/actors should be used. It's sometimes difficult to tell, but we have to do the best we can, and stick to reliable published sources that attribute their figures to analysts or internal estimates. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't always have to be inflated. They might have a financial incentive to report a lower figure. If they report a lower number publicly, they might be less liable for entertainment taxes or reduce their liability to their investors. I'm not saying that this is what's happening with Mungaru Male, I'm saying that we don't know what the incentive is, we only know that a primary source has an incentive to fudge the figures. This is why we don't use primary sources for such things. Now, sometimes we find estimates that are high and it just doesn't pass the smell test, that's understandable, but a good approach is to go to the article's talk page and discuss things. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to 1971: Beyond Borders, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand the rationale behind this change. "SRK was apparently credited first in 'FAN'." How an actor is credited in one movie has zero bearing on how they are credited in another. Where does notion that even come from? To figure out how to properly determine starring credits, see Template:Infobox film instructions for how to use the |starring= parameter. Also, please see WP:FILMCAST. For the |starring= parameter of the infobox, we use the film poster's billing block or other prominent credits. If that isn't available, we may use onscreen credits. But what we absolutely do not do is base our ordering on some perceived cultural seniority or our personal preferences. If he was credited first in Fan, then it is appropriate to credit him first in the article on Fan. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Pavanjandhyala. Good to see you caring about currency-related issues. There are two most-practiced ways of denoting currencies. One is to follow MOS:COMMONALITY; though it says preferable, in the current context of globalisation, using the million format is understandable. However, here, your argument is also justified: For monetary figures, you may use the Indian numbering system but also give their US dollar equivalents in parentheses. But, the problem is, the INRConvert template being used for the purpose is found inaccurate by many because of improper conversions (it was reported that it uses 2013 inflation rates for Indian currency). Hence, there is another way in practice. That is, we mention crores first, and write millions in brackets. For example, ₹50 crores (500 million). This is one of the approved ways as per Basic India conventions: You may use the Indian numbering system of lakhs and crores but should give their equivalents in millions/billions in parentheses. Let me know what you think of it. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pavan Jandhyala for discussing it here. As you say, the reports of 2013 inflation rates apparently come from people who haven't updated the browsers. My old browser showed inflation values (as on 2013). But when I switched to my newer browser, it was showing based on the current values in 2016. I think it is acceptable to use INRConvert since it is the standard being followed in the 'List of Highest Grossing Indian films' page. Thanks and warm regards!PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at WT:ICTF is that we do not use {{INRConvert}} in the Infobox. You can learn why by looking for the relevant discussion. You may need to check the archives. As for crore, many of the regular ICTF members seem to prefer millions and billions per MOS:COMMONALITY. We write for a global readership, not just an Indian one. If you feel strongly about either issue, then you need to open a discussion in a central location, like at WT:ICTF. Edit warring is not an option, forcing your point of view is not an option. One last note, Plutonium, watch the personal attacks. If you can't discuss without resorting name-calling, you should find another hobby. personal attacks are not tolerated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Sahasam Swasaga Sagipo, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Shanthiniketan. As you said if we were considered primary suorce, Mungaru Male would be a 40 crore. That too 40 crore was collected within 400 day, not lifetime collection. Any way we don't consider primary source as a reliable source, per senior editors. And even u can Google Mungaru Male was collected 125 crore according to few sources and raiding by CBI and extremely remained 75 crore. This is what published by the reputed Journalism. So we consider only secondary sources... Thank you
Not interested in puffery and farce. The director himself confirmed it many times that the film collected just above 40 crore. That was phenomenal then, considering the small market. Your figure blown up figure, ₹ 125 crore was not even possible for Bollywood films back then! Bollywood is a big market and it had its first 100-crore grosser only in 2008 with Ghajini. Kindly refrain from making childish statements. Thanks in advance, if you decide to do so. Also, Wikipedia does not entertain blogs as sources.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For your kind information-
It was the FIRST Indian film of any language to be screened continuously for one year in a multiplex. The film recorded the highest box-office collections in the history of Kannada cinema and currently holds the record for the longest running film at a multiplex. Overall it ran over 865-days in Karnataka.
U said that even Bollywood films weren't collected over 100 crore. Bollywood films runs only one or more weeks.
I agry with u that KFI has a small market. But it has collected over 75 crore, running over 865 days, not within a week.... Thank you
Though I don't think it is mandatory, it is advised that you are 18 years or above to be eligible to edit in Wikipedia. Juvenile comments, imaginary figures and pointless puffery are not entertained in Wikipedia. You are in the wrong place. Cyphoidbomb, kindly read the short discussion that has happened here. Thanks. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, re: this, a few notes. We don't have a blanket ban on YouTube videos as references. Generally we avoid using YouTube as references, but usually because oftentimes there is a potential for Wikipedia to be pointing to a copyright violation when we use things like music videos as references. That can be problematic, so as a rule if a site isn't verified, we would avoid it. If a site is verified as an official outlet for music videos (or whatever), then the copyright issue would probably not be relevant. The real issue about the video you removed is about whether or not Lehren TV is a reliable source. If the community decided that they are, then it's possible their videos (from a verified channel) could be used as a reference. If The Hindu, for example, had an online video presence on a verified channel, then we could cite one of their news reports. Anyhow, my point is that we don't have a blanket ban on YouTube videos, and the real question is whether or not Lehren TV, and more importantly, the person who made the claim, is a reliable source. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding your edits about sairat collection re: this ,Lehren is media and entertainment website. Bharathi Pradhan is Senior Journalist and Author and Viveck Vaswani is producer. If the person is not reliable the why would he be invited on show business talk. And if Lehren.tv channel is not reliable then why would Taran Adarsh of Bollywood Hungama(Indian film Critic and Business Analyst) make appearance on the show for previous show business talk episode here[1]. So my point is Leren.tv is reliable source and Bharathi Pradhan is respected reporter Regards,Ani_007d
Hi there, it would be appreciated if you'd please not publish content like this where you assert that a film "instantly recorded a hit." This is hyperbolic language that has no place in an encyclopedia. We don't regurgitate subjective declarations like "the film declared as all-time blockbuster" or "the film was a disaster" these are terms appropriate for trade outlets, but such subjective evaluations don't fit in a neutral encyclopedia. Might as well say that the dub was "beautiful", "fun" or "thoroughly entertaining". Opinions aren't facts. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:RahulRajComposer.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Train2104 (t • c) 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
A tag has been placed on File:FilmmakerPriyadarshan1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 19 May 2005, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kailash29792(talk)05:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaar? (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:RandamoozhamFirstLook.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, I'm Hammersoft. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mohanlal seemed less than neutral to me, so it has been removed it for now. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are someone who knows about the Indian film industry, you need not be told that he is one of the most revered actors in the country. I didn't want to use 'YouTube' as a source. Else, there are multiple videos of the country's cinema moguls, including Bachchan, hailing him as the best actor in the country. Besides, if Brando's page can contain such details and Bachchan's page can contain things like "Star of the Millenium", "Shehehshah of Bollywood", then this certainly should be here. I haven't used such fancy titles in Mohanlal's page. It's just a mention of him, being revered as one of the greatest in the country. There is nothing non-neutral about it.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I grant I am not well versed in the Indian film industry. That said, I don't need to be. I can think of many actors who are openly regarded as having been the best of their generation, country, genre, what have you. Such superlatives are opinions, to be sure, and such opinions can be backed up by secondary sources that say "many people feel so-and-so is the best at..." Frankly, it's worthless. Mohanlal has plenty of accolades by various established, notable award giving organizations. Such awards being given are fact. That some people regard him as this, that or the other thing is nebulous at best. Even if a newspaper says some people regard him that way, it is still nebulous. The awards given are far more than sufficient to establish that he is an actor of some fame. We do not need to add peacock phrasing to embellish his record. Please read WP:PEACOCK. I note that you re-added this content and that it was removed again. Please do not add it again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mohanlal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Thank you for uploading File:FilmmakerPriyadarshan1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Thank you. But this image is a portrait of the person mentioned in the article. The image shall strictly be used only in the infobox of the article Priyadarshan. The file was obtained from his personal website. I assure you that there would not be any copyright issues associated with this usage. I request you to kindly not delete this.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:RahulRaj piano.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to Spyder (film) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 14:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, re: this, did you double-check your changes? Crore should not be capitalised, there's no need for time specificity down to the seconds, you deleted a sourced gross value, you restored meaningless "mixed to negative" language that is shunned by multiple Wikiprojects, you deleted the plot section, and there was no explanation for any of these changes. I can only assume this was a mistake. Yes? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PlutoniumBackToTheFuture. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hi there, re: this, you've been around long enough to know that even with minor rewording, we don't "declare" films as any hyperbolic absolute. We present such observations neutrally, assuming they are even sourced. For example, when Rotten Tomatoes declares a western film "rotten" we do not publish that, because it's not neutral. As a neutral encyclopedia, we might describe the critical response as generally negative. I'm sure you can see the difference. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You are right! In my edit, I had only added the word box-office to the sentence. Someone else had already made the 'declare' statement. That should be removed. I shall do that rightaway. Thanks for notifying. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Ron Ethan Yohann) has been reviewed!
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello PlutoniumBackToTheFuture: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
No content is copied from other filmmaker's articles in S. S. Rajamouli. you are deliberately vandalizing the article without correcting puffery stuff in the first place, which was actually added by you through your IP addressees. Now you create a username. If you think the article is written like an advertisement, let other editors to correct it. If you want the advert template to be added, it will added in right section no problem. It is not advertisement to call a spade a spade, if he received 2 national awards, doesn't make it advertisement. Stop your disruptive editing, you are the one who made it puffery. Some how you are jealous of the director's popularity. Stop your conjuring tricks. Stop wasting other editor's time. Thank You for your cooperation.Kanikaranganath (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested in you P.O.V stuff. This is also not the way to communicate in Wiki. Why should I create and remove all the puffery myself? You are free to edit the article removing the puffery tone. But do check the previous edit summaries carefully before you edit.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does not come under POV. All his films doesnt come under debut section. Now, I added mainstream, and film craft - which means director's vision and nature of genre, which in turn means description of his films, and film festivals. Kanikaranganath (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The former part is partially true //Director's vision//, but film 'craft' isn't exactly the nature of genres or about their competence to participate in festivals. Film 'craft' actually means the director's style of execution., i.e, his visual style, editing patterns, choice of music, soundscapes etc.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eega won international awards, Baahubali nominated by american saturn awards, this definitely means international acclaim not just screening of the film. The usage of the word acclaim is not an advertisement. Usage of words such as bagged, renowned, eminent, legendary, only director, greatest director etc come under fan POV and advertisements. Kanikaranganath (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore the article to 13:26, 19 January 2018 (restored by you). I mean your best revision. Why do you wish to spoil the article quality by reverting your own edits. I am sure, you dont want the article to grow. Are you jealous of S.S. Rjaamouli's achievemnt Priedcraw (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement and puffery. Talk about 'spoiling the quality'. Who is doing it by repeated inclusion of puffery? Sentiments and opinions (P.O.V) don't work here. A clean article is always encouraged.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Supergirl (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PlutoniumBackToTheFuture. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Sure. Thanks for the information. Good that it isn't a vote. I did see the discussion. But I found it dormant after a while. 7 days is fair. But I guess it shouldn't remain so after that period, since the article is richly sourced and there hasn't been a 'deletion' consensus.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Inetscreen.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
[3][4] - As per the given sources, AB's casting is not confirmed by the makers. So you can't assert it like a fact. Where is the source for but eventually Mohanlal was approached and successfully brought on board ? I am not asking about the source confirming Mohanlal's casting, where is the source which states AB was initially approached and later Mohanlal replaced him ? Do not form your own conclusion, that is WP:SYN and also WP:OR.--Let There Be Sunshine09:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I think this is not a great call. While secondary sources do rely on primary sources, if they are just acting mouthpieces for the primary source, as many thirsty trade rags do, then they're just part of the problem. Especially in an industry that is known for fudging numbers. Usually our secondary sources check a number of avenues, including distributor reports and theatre reports to arrive at some figure. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to 1971: Beyond Borders, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 14:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Supergirl (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Alien (film). All sources say the film was a British-American co-production. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
