User talk:Vaazan

Welcome!

Hello Vaazan, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. jonkerz ♠ 13:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RapidEye AG Logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RapidEye AG Logo.gif. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marmayogi (2010 film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Marmayogi (2010 film). Since you had some involvement with the Marmayogi (2010 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Saaho. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diff: [1] Do not restore unsourced content. It is not your place to attempt to summarise critical response based on bunch of cherrypicked reviews. Editors are not critical response aggregators. If you restore this POV content without attributing the summary to a specific voice, it will be considered disruptive. You have a scant 150 edits under your belt. Your knowledge of community standards is lacking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was not "unnecessary" as you erroneously claim in your edit summary. This is exactly what you should have done when you added the content the first time. All opinions, especially ones that attempt to summarise the entirety of critical response must be directly attributed to a specific voice, not pulled out of our own minds. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have vomitted verbally on my talk page just because I have logically un-did your vandalism in another page, specifically Saaho. Go and read movie review summaries of several Hollywood movies in Wikipedia. The response summaries are almost never cited. Because that's what a one-liner summary is all about. You can find adjectives like positive, negative, mixed, favourable and unfavourable in those movies' summaries, none of them cited word by word.

If you want to oppose my view, do so using logic and decent language. Don't use sentences expressing your superiority and treating others inferiorly - like you have done on my talk page. Next time, have the decency to talk in the page where edits are done. Not on my talk page. Adiós!

Vaazan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaazan (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 September 2019 Vaazan (UTC)

As noted above, if you add summaries of critical response, they must be directly attributed to a specific voice. This isn't up for debate. That is codified specifically at MOS:FILM, our Manual of Style for how film articles should be built. I strongly encourage you to familiarise yourself with these content guidelines, as they represent widespread community consensus, and deviations from these norms are not typically considered constructive. Note also our policy on original research which, in a nutshell, prohibits us from adding content based on what we have personally observed or what we feel, or what we believe to be true, or what we've interpreted a variety of facts to mean. Editors do not create information, they find information published in reliable secondary sources and summarise that explicit data. Note also that any unsourced, controversial content like this can be removed by any editor, and it is the responsibility of the person re-adding it to justify it with a reference. If that back-and-forth upsets you, I recommend adding the reference when you add the content. Lastly, there is no crime in not knowing what all of our myriad guidelines and policies are, but if that's the case, perhaps you shouldn't be reverting other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]