Amvicky

Welcome!

Hello, Amvicky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Untitled Chimbudevan-Vijay Project, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Untitled Chimbudevan-Vijay Project

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Untitled Chimbudevan-Vijay Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm Mz7. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Darude— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Veeram, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Puli (2015 film) ‎, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Use reliable sources. Do not use blogs. Materialscientist (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amvicky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Amvicky (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Reason for block not addressed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

here is the source of national media,states that Puli collection 35cr in 3days,but you have entered Wrong Information

References

October 2015

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to List of most viewed YouTube videos. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vijay 60, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vijay. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

More vandalism

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Vedalam. - Arjayay (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 24 (2016 film). Diffs: [1][2] Blogs may not be used as references per WP:UGC. Anyone can create a blog and call themselves an expert on a subject. Doesn't make them reliable sources. We only care what mainstream published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and clear editorial policies have to say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

As noted, we only care what reliable mainstream sources say about a subject. Your change here, where you link to a random guy retweeting a post from an unverified Twitter account doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Please read WP:UGC and WP:RS, as any more problematic sources will necessitate administrative action. If you're not sure about a source, open a discussion on the article's talk page to ask. That's what talk pages are for. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You have again attributed controversial content to a blog in this edit. Worse, it's a fan blog, which strongly implies a bias. Since you apparently haven't bothered to read up on user-generated content, your account has been blocked. Blocks aren't forever. You are always at liberty to request an unblock, but you're going to have to demonstrate some comprehension of our sourcing guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Eiichiro oda at work.png

Thanks for uploading File:Eiichiro oda at work.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.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Promotional content

In this edit you asserted that Thuppakki made XXX crore per this source. We're not here to regurgitate the claims made by producers, distributors, or other financially involved entities. We only care what reliable independent sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about any given subject. If a distributor is in a position to comment on an unrelated film's success, that in itself is odd, and if they are directly involved through re-releases or dubs or whatever, then their analysis is insufficient. Stick to independent sources, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You've resubmitted this problematic content. That leads me to believe that either you don't understand why it is problematic, or you don't care. Neither scenario is a good one. Resubmitting problematic content without achieving consensus through discussion is not constructive. Can you please explain why we should ignore established community consensus about primary sources? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In this edit you have said, "I am Resubmitting this Edit, I can Understand That Gross Claims Made by Producers are not accepted, But the Submitted Source is from TIMES OF INDIA, the Leading News Media of India". What you didn't seem to notice is, TOI got their information from the producers, and that borders on fruit of the poisonous tree: "If an otherwise reliable source attributes information to an unreliable source then that information is likewise unreliable." Kailash29792 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Amvicky, consider this your last warning on the matter. Competence is required at Wikipedia. If people keep explaining the same concept to you and you continue to make the same mistake, at some point your edits become disruptive. We are now at that point. If it continues, I will have to interrupt your editing privileges to protect the encyclopedia. And in the future, any time an editor provides you with a clear explanation for why an edit of yours is problematic, you should stop making the change until you fully understand the objection. When you are reverted, per WP:BRD the burden is yours to open a discussion and to seek consensus for your change. No exceptions. Oh, and just for a little perspective, this Times of India article reprints a claim by Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan that MSG-2 The Messenger made 500 crore, which would make it one of the top 3 highest-grossing Indian films. However the content is obviously a press release, no other reliable sources mention it in their Top 10 lists, the guy is known for inflating truth, and there were similar questionable claims made about his first film. So sometimes even reliable sources make poor decisions to regurgitate questionable data. That is why we require sources to independently verify the data before we accept it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". You're marking all of your edits as minor when most of them are not. Generally, edits to correct spelling, remove excess blank lines or other trivia edits are considered minor. Please read the page linked above on what is, and it not a minor edit and be more cautious about checking the minor edit box. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Indian films

Re: this change, if you have some sort of POV dispute about the financial data reported by IBT, and attributed to Forbes India, you need to open a discussion on the talk page, not manipulate the information to suit your point of view. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Day counts in gross parameter

Re: this, we don't typically include day counts in the |gross= parameter. Newly-released films are assumed to be in flux. Note The Girl on the Train (2016 film), a UK/US film is still in theaters and there is no day count for the gross. If you wish to include these counts, you will need to discuss at every article you change, or in some central location like WT:ICTF to get community consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Bairavaa budget

Hello, If you want to insert budget information, a YouTube link is probably not the best source you can find, furthermore linking to YouTube is undesirable because of the danger of violating copyright.ronaz^Talk! 09:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Amvicky. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, indefinitely does not mean forever, it means for the foreseeable future. You are free to request an unblock, but you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that you understand why you have been blocked, as well as present some sort of compelling plan for avoiding a future block. I don't know what to make of these edits, Amvicky. Firstly, you use a truly insufficient source, tollytrendz for the financial data. You have previously been told (once in October 2015, three times in May 2016) that you may not use blogs as references. I don't know what criteria you use to pick and choose sources you find reliable, but from my years of experience editing at Wikipedia, this looks like every other hacked-together cookie-cutter blog out there.

I also don't understand how you could pick one single 2/5 star film review and extrapolate the entirety of critical response being "mixed". That violates our policy on original research and very much looks like you are foisting your own point of view into the article. Per MOS:FILM summaries of critical response should be directly attributed to specific voices. The above, coupled with stuff like this, where you unilaterally decide that Forbes and IBT, sources that are widely considered reliable, are not sufficient, just makes me think that you aren't quite ready to edit here. Feel free to convince a reviewing administrator otherwise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb You May be Right I dint Provide Reliable Source for the Box Office , But The Film is with Mixed Reviews , just Because You think one media site gave 2/5 doesn't make it a negative or bad movie , i can provide many negative reviews and also many positive reviews from many reliable sources for this same film.Here is a Link , what your so called IBT says.

And Please Cyphoidbomb Unblock Me, This My Account and i am not only one who uses same IP , this block is in IP range. This Block Affects other users also, so unblock as soon as possible , i have made many good contributions in Wikipedia , sometimes different users accept different sources. i'll try to be more care full and thank you .Amvicky (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

I still don't think that you understand my point about where summaries of critical response need to come from. Before I consider an unblock, I need to know that you understand what your duty as an editor is in that regard. (Please also remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~ This will append your name and timestamp, like what you see here →) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I can Understand what you are trying to say,I thought of updating info with some sources as soon as possible (assuming they are reliable).here after, as a editor i will always provide the most reliable source, if i edit something. i request an unblock.Amvicky (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Please explain in your own words how you would go about adding a summary of critical response in the future.
2. Are you a paid editor? Are the other people you talking about paid editors as well? It's not against the rules to be a paid editor, but per WP:PAID, you must disclose that you are a paid editor, along with who is paying you, and any other information that is relevant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

To add a Critical Response,We Should State what the actual reliable sources and facts says, Example - if Times of India states that Film is Like this and that , we can even add those actual statements and it should be Strictly Reliable Sources since this is response from critics not the box office or people's choice, i can understand that. and Am Not a Paid editor , lol Do You really think am professional in this ?, i am just exploring Wikipedia and edit stuff and update things on my interests. Amvicky (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still a little concerned that you don't quite understand the point I was trying to make, since you weren't able to articulate it in a way that was really convincing to me. That said, I'm going to unblock you on good faith, but please don't make these mistakes in the future, as they will result in another block. And in the future you should really be more responsive to comments made on your talk page. Editing silently isn't helpful. This is a community project and communication is important. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank You Very much,ill be more responsive in the talk page and more care full in editing. Amvicky (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Along with that, please take a few minutes and read WP:MINOR. You mark most of your edits as minor when they shouldn't. Please only flag truly minor edits (spelling changes, links, etc) as minor. Ravensfire (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your the best Jallikattuman (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks DUDE Jallikattuman (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

One Piece copies sold

Actually Anime News Network's does state its source it the first first sentence, which is the May issue of Shueisha's Saikyō Jump. Shueisha is the publisher of One Piece and the 350 million copies world wide comes directly from them. —Farix (t | c) 14:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to directly dispute the accuracy of ANN's reporting, then either take it to the reliable sources notice board or to WikiProject Anime and manga. However, until then, we must go with the figure that is directly stated by the source, which is the publisher, as the official figure. DO NOT REVERT based on a series of disjointed links that do not directly state 411 million copies, —Farix (t | c) 15:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What about Other Reliable Sources Stating 380M (2015) and why not disjoint links Amvicky 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amvicky. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 15:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Vijay atlee gv.prakash from shooting spot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Vijay atlee gv.prakash from shooting spot.jpg. 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.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)