User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

New Year's 2019

Happy New Year!

Cyphoidbomb,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocking a vandal

Please block this user 49.204.223.21. I warned the user not to make unsourced, disruptive but looks like he/she is rarely paying attention. He/she is constantly engaging in vandalizing movie genres and often resolves to clever edits by first changing the correct genre partially, only to fix the error in next edit so that it can't be directly reverted. Please look into this. These IPs are constantly vandalizing and not everyone is paying attention. (77Survivor (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

@77Survivor: Hi there, traditionally, when asking an administrator to block someone on the basis that they are a vandal, you need to include "diffs" of their edits that demonstrate clear vandalism, and in cases where the vandalism is more subtle, you'd include references as well to say "See, nobody considers this film a musical". Going through a random set of their edits, I don't see clear vandalism. Was this translation vandalism, or a good faith effort to improve the article? What about this where he changed action comedy to police? Looking at the poster I don't get the sense it's an uproarious comedy. Maybe this edit where he changes romantic comedy to musical was disruptive? I don't know. I did think this edit where they mashed together psychological science fiction action film was a bit obnoxious, so I left them a clear warning about adding unsourced genres, which is the best I can do at this point. Also, we typically don't block people unless you've tried multiple times to communicate with them and there has been no response or change in their behavior. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: First of all, I'm no fool to post a blocking message on your talk page as long as he was responding and not engaging in edit wars. But he's at it again. The psychological sci-fi action thing at Azhagiya Tamil Magan is being repeated, as is the gangster thing at Pokkiri. I'm myself tired of reverting his edits again and again. I've tried so many times but now this is getting overboard. If you can't block him, at least protect the pages. Because vandalism IS happening, whether you acknowledge it or not. You did point some random edits which weren't vandalism, well I can give you that but you've ignored a major chunk of his edits which are nowhere correct. The warnings are ineffective. He isn't agreeing. He isn't even responding. (77Survivor (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC))

@77Survivor: How do I know what the vandalism is if you don't show me with diffs? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@77Survivor: I've blocked the IP for 36 hours to encourage them to think about the issue, but I'm unclear on how "gangster film" is incorrect for Pokkiri. The words gang and gangster appear 14 times in the article. Here at Rajapattai, he changes masala to action comedy. While I don't see that designation at the BBFC, I find sources like this and this that suggest he didn't pull the comedy thing out of thin air. That's not clear vandalism, it seems more of an interpretive thing. Where is the clear vandalism, and can you show me how it is absolutely vandalism? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@77Survivor: I didn't show you because I didn't know how to show the diffs but let's do it anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pokkiri&oldid=876423939 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pokkiri&oldid=876423910 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pokkiri&oldid=876785686 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azhagiya_Tamil_Magan&oldid=876811307 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spyder_(film)&oldid=876126448 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spyder_(film)&oldid=876126421 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spyder_(film)&oldid=874923106

As for Pokkiri, the gangster film genre doesn't work in entirety because it's not a gangster film in the first place. It's about a cop who's undercover to take down a gangster. The film is about how the cop eliminates his enemies one by one while also taking care of his loved one. It also does come under crime genre apart from action but gangster films are rooted mostly in drama like The Godfather. I know not all gangster films are the same but this one is easily an all-out action film instead of gangster. This isn't my personal opinion. I'm saying the same way you based your opinion just on the words "gang" and "gangster". Wikipedia itself says an action movie containing criminality is often labelled as a crime thriller by many, but it's not necessarily true. If this one qualifies as a gangster film, then almost every action movie made in India features criminality. Does that make them crime movies/gangster movies? Necessarily not. (77Survivor (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

@77Survivor: What you just described is a difference of opinion that could very well be a good-faith difference. It's not clearly vandalism. That's the point I'm trying to make: If you call someone a vandal and want them blocked because they're vandalising, then you need to demonstrate unequivocally that they are engaging in vandalism, not just that they have a difference of opinion on genres. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I guess I failed to understand something. But what about the second IP he used? (77Survivor (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC))

@77Survivor: I blocked that IP, since they were evading a previous block. Now they're kind of in the "beginning to be disruptive" area. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey

How can I start a discussion about Indian television when WP:INTV is inactive? There is a need to discuss about why Indian television articles just consider the Indian film sources at WP:ICTF as reliable. Why is there no separate guideline and information about other sources for television. For film articles, those sources are apt. But not for television articles. Because Indian media works very differently for films and television. It is incorrect to consider those sources as the only reliable sources for television because the focus of most of those sources is film and bollywood coverage. There should be a separate set of sources that should be considered reliable for ITV. Hope you're understanding what I'm saying. MiaSays (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@MiaSays: You can start a discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television plus there was a discussion regarding some sources which I think you should read [1]. Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@MiaSays: You could try opening the discussion at WikiProject India, since it is the most general WikiProject with probably the highest number of editors familiar with Indian culture. However, many of those editors tend to edit in more serious areas, like history and politics and may not care as much about television. There's also the possibility of opening the discussion at WikiProject Television, but there is a potential for poor participation, since most of those editors tend to only care about American and British television. You could also potentially open the discussion at the Indian cinema task force, but there isn't a lot of great participation there either--most of the serious film editors tend to be quiet and work among themselves. I would probably gamble on opening the discussion at WT:IN, then dropping invitations at WT:ICTF and WT:TV. By the way, are you also familiar with WP:ICTFFAQ? The point of WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources is not to be an all-inclusive list. It exists to provide general guidance--for instance "no blogs" is applicable whether the series is in Malayalam, Telugu, Punjabi or Hindi. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh and just to clarify the ICTFFAQ document is a work-in-progress. It was intended to be a document that the community would get together to discussion, but participation dropped off. It's not a codified, finished document. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: Hey, I did check that discussion out. My point is there needs to be a discussion about sources that can be used for Indian television articles. Using Indian film sources for Indian television is incorrect because a lot of them don't even cover Indian television. There are a separate lot of sources that cover Indian television and they need to be discussed because they are considered unreliable and any edits including them are reverted. This is long due. And @Cyphoidbomb: I agree with the blog thing. Blogs are not valid, no matter which language. But media sites that actually cover about Indian television and awards need to be decided so as to be fair and correct to the Indian television articles. MiaSays (talk)

Well, I dunno. Maybe it makes more sense to have it at WT:TV, although be prepared for a lack of interest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Harshad Chopda

Hi Can you help this user on this page [2]. Thanks. Sid95Q (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Jan 2019

Atleast look at the table. The edits by that Sid user spoiled the whole arrangement of the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjalimarar95 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Also just so you know New Talent Awards is hosted by Indiantelevison.com which also hosts Indian Telly Awards so it is credible. It does not have a page because it is not an annual event. Does not take away it's credibility. Even Indian Telly Awards will be held after 4 years in Feb end or March. Does it take away it's importance? You really dont know how Indian television works. You guys follow film guidelines and film sources which dont even focus on Indian tv. Adding link so you can confirm RELIABILIY http://www.indiantelevision.com/our-events — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.230.229 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes like ~~~~
2. Notability is not inherited. The fact that Indiantelevision.com hosts New Talent Awards doesn't automatically make New Talent Awards notable.
3. "It does not have a page because it is not an annual event." LOL! You're attempting to describe the reasoning process that a non-existent person went through to ultimately decide not to create the article. It does not have a page ostensibly because nobody's endeavored to create one.
4. "You really dont know how Indian television works." There is nothing special about Indian television that requires the inclusion of every award.
5. "You guys follow film guidelines and film sources which dont even focus on Indian tv." Film guidelines are often embraced by WikiProject Television, but feel free to open a query at WT:TV to get other opinions. The general (non-film/non-TV) community typically requires that list items be properly established as notable. Note an article like List of British former child actors. Virtually everybody on that page has an article that establishes their notability. "But what about India?!" List of Indian child actors. And note List of awards and nominations received by Amitabh Bachchan. Do we spend a lot of time at that article listing all of the minor awards Bachchan won over his career? No, we focus on the biggies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Everyone Has a Story

Hello, I need a help. I started User:Titodutta/Draft/Everyone Has a Story which was a bestseller. Now the title Everyone Has a Story which is a redirect to a television show. The televsion article does not mention "Everyone Has a Story". The redirect history shows, it was not notable. I am looking for a second opinion. Could you please have a look and move/not move the page whatever you find the best? Regards.I'll add a categories and low-resolution non-free cover once the articleis on mainspace --Titodutta (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

​I'm not Cyphoidbomb, but I've moved it to mainspace. I don't think the Today segment is notable. Even if there were something to write about it, it wouldn't be the primary topic. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Titodutta (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Uricnobel

This is Uricnobel. Could you please tell me why you are doing this even after six months. Time and again I have proved my self that I am a loyal wikipedian. Why are you doing this ? There is no legal mechanism for this ? Can I pay any fine and provide some ID proof. If that works. Why dont you discuss my case with arbitration committee. Stop discouraging me. I am here to help wikipedia, I am here to share some of your responsibilities. Take my issue on humanitarian grounds.Contrib2 (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Fuck off. Stop wasting my time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Bhanwar singh vaish

Hey, tough request for you. Would mind reviewing this discussion on Bhanwar singh vaish's talk page? They've just about run AussieLegend and my patience out and the next steps are, I'm pretty sure, going to be fairly unpleasant for them. I'm hoping you may be able to get through to them better than we've been able. Appreciate it. Ravensfire (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Happy new year! I've been watching it, but appreciate the note. I just left him a sage comment. If he doesn't improve, let me know and I'll look at blocking him. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Socks from somebody's drawer...

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I recently noticed the edits of Ghjklopui to List of awards and nominations received by Vijay and having looked at some of their other edits I think it's probable that they are a sock - probably of Bothiman. They have also added images uploaded by Fghjkltyuiop and Lkjhgfdsartyuiop who are clearly the same person (as per their user pages) and I'm thinking that they are probably also Bothiman socks. Could you give those accounts a quick once-over and see if you agree with me? I can make a proper SPI report but I wanted to get some input on my gut feeling first. --bonadea contributions talk 16:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Happy new year! Significant intersections between the three accounts, the random names and haphazard user pages suggest that they're throw-away on purpose. I like this snark from another throw-away account Hjkl12345, "He was won over 50 awards out of which 27 were notable and rest were non notable awards." This edit, where Ghjklopui moved the award page to List of notable awards and nominations received by Vijay seems like more petulant snark about the "award must be notable" issue. Since Hjk112345 was a CU confirmed sock, it seems highly likely that Ghjklopui is a sock, and the rest as well. I'd support the SPI. Since they're using multiple accounts simultaneously, a CU might be warranted to see if there are undiscovered ones. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Are you still pursuing this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

K.G.F: Chapter 1

Hi, can you please take a look at the KGF movie page and fix the infobox and lead section? Someone has messed that up and I don't know how to fix it technically. Csgir (talk)

@Csgir:  Fixed - In these edits the user messed up the reference tagging and left behind weird formatting like </ref>ref> <ref>. I've reverted their edits since their claim of the film crossing 250 crore was not supported by the reference they provided. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hebbuli not crossed 100 crore

Hi! You have retrieved hebbuli in the list of Kannada highest grossing films, but actual thing is Hebbuli is not even collected ₹50 crore in its lifetime, ₹100 core is really funny, you can observe #kgf film mentioned in every Reputed article that its the first ₹100 crore film in #kannada means #sandalwood. So plz don't allow the fake n blog news in wikipedia, because people can lose trust on wiki. Please review my question on #hebbuli.

Thanks Tigerikkada (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tigerikkada: You need to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek a new consensus. You might be right, but we need references and discussions to decide what is truth or not. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi!Am here to clarify the exact collection of Hebbuli film, You can go via this link https://www.ibtimes.co.in/highest-grossing-kannada-movie-sandalwood-2017-report-card-raajakumara-hebbuli-bharjari-biggest-hits-754310, which is published by #Ibtimes, 2017 total box office report of #Kannada films... Thanks

Hi! I have provided reliable source on Hebbuli collection in previous tweet, n am waiting for your reply. Thanks

The Voice India Season 3

I want to say that if everything is right on this article then what the problem to move that page to mainspace. I will not do again but I am saying you are not doing right as Wikipedia is the fast improve site and yet The Voices'Season 3 article not created so shame on us. Including me,you and us Bhanwar singh vaish (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bhanwar singh vaish: You need to discuss the matter with the other editors and fix the problems that they raise. Why are you in such a rush to make the article live? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hebbuli fake ₹100 crore

Hi! Hebbuli film was released in 2017 and officially collected ₹30 crore in lifetime of its release, and even it was not added in wiki of highest grossing Kannada films list, but suddenly since 2 days its appearing and our local Channel also noticed Hebbuli in the list and started to suspecting the reliability of Wikipedia... Please try to know the fact of Hebbuli collection. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerikkada (talk • contribs) 10:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Request of adding protection of page

Dear user. I kindly request u plzz add protection of Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi page. In the following too much unsourced and unrelated editing happening. Thank you... Sush150 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sush150: If you're asking for page protection, you need to point out the specific level of problematic edits, by providing diffs that demonstrate a pattern of problematic editing. We don't typically protect articles just because a few pernicious edits have been made. Bring some evidence and I'll look at it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Padmalakshmisx

May I please trouble you. You are familiar with Padmalakshmisx's case and behavior, so how likely do you think Paavada is ? Please refer Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Paavada for the case.--Let There Be Sunshine 10:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

List of highest grossing Tamil films article

Is there any possibilities to restore List of highest-grossing Tamil films article now ?, I have already created the article with updated figures/films with limited sections like not including weekend collection section since its problematic. --Wiki KuthiVaiyans (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As I think Czar mentioned here, there have been previous discussions [3][4] that preferred for Indian films to be listed under one umbrella article, which we already have at List of highest-grossing Indian films. So you would need to establish a new community consensus. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes to List of awards and nominations received by Vijay article

Behindwoods gold medal awards 4 and 0 Total 37 .please mention this thanks it's missing Geateres (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

IMDb Rating Removal

Sorry respected editor I wasnt aware of the fact that IMDb ratings are manipulative in nature.I offer my sincere apologies to you. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Manikarnika : The Queen of Jhansi

Hi CyphoidBomb, I saw you undid a link that I included for director Krish. Can you share a Wikipedia on how to link names and keywords to Wikipedia pages please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virakiwi (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Virakiwi: - See WP:LINKING. Note that I undid that link because we already had a link to the Krish article four words earlier. We should be careful not to "overlink". Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted the thought on over-linking. Was curious to know if there are guidelines available. I am personally OK with either. So, leaving it as it is. Virakiwi (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the guidelines! Virakiwi (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You are a person with very good humor.. So I award you with the barnstar of good humor Rnavjr0405 (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Shilpa Shinde

Noted. Will provide an explanation next time. --Princessruby (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Shilpa Shinde

I've improved the article, by removing some portion of information as it wasn't needed, what you were adding was already there in the career section, so re-adding the same information makes the article look dull. It looks better now, so please do not add any more information, but feel free to improve the career section. --Princessruby (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Princessruby: You do realise that the lead is supposed to repeat content that is found elsewhere in the article, right? That is its entire function. Have you read MOS:LEAD yet? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:. I comprehend, yet I think the article looks too messy that way. I wanted to share my point of view which I did, the rest is upto you. My only intention was to improve the article. --Princessruby (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Similar edits by different usenames on Shiva (TV series)

Hi these users I am abubakar 500 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Uid 906 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Nickelodeon Team (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) look like one person as their edits are same on Shiva (TV series) examples [5] [6] [7]. Now one user is removing content from My User page as well [8]. Thanks. Sid95Q (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: Thanks for the tip. I saw that Nickelodeon Team was blocked for username violation. I indeffed the other two. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your kindness sir. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

IMMJ

Can you please protect Ishq Mein Marjawan? Someone is continuously vandalising it from different ips. KiaraHooda (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Viswasam

Harihara19091965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user keeps changing figures in Viswasam page with unsourced and predictions of a old source Wiki KuthiVaiyans (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Malayalam list

Nikkznikkinikkz created separate page for List of highest-grossing Malayalam films, previously such an article was deleted [9]. Now both are merged. Entries in this article is highly challengeable, with most of the sources either does not cite the given figures or are unverifiable.137.97.128.59 (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do about it. If this is something you care about, you should go through all the references and spot-check whether or not they properly verify the content that precedes it. I did that for Pokkiri Raja, which had eight references and found that only two made a claim that the film was the highest-grossing Malayalam film of 2010, but I couldn't see a 32 crore claim from any of those references. I left a message on the talk page. This may be something that has to be talked through. It's certainly not something I can do by myself, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Waheed Zafar Qasmi

Hello Cyphoidbomb, I was hoping that you might add this article to your watchlist: Waheed Zafar Qasmi. It has been attracting some unusual attention as of late from a small handful of single-purpose accounts. [10] Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Yamaguchi先生: Did you notice this blocked account and this guy? Pretty ducky just by their names alone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not see that initially, thank you again Cyphoidbomb. Kind regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Please kindly block or warn vertercas

So far vertercas had joined just 13 days ago but he had done almost 60 edits most of his edits were degrading the Ajith movies. A sock puppet using self proclaimed informations given by prakash uphadhyaya as citing source regarding Vivegam/Viswasam production and financials. Lumbercane (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lumbercane: I've blocked them as a sock of Bothiman. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bhanwar singh vaish

Hi this user Bhanwar singh vaish (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) again creating multiple pages on same topic as earlier He was earlier doing with other topics here, [11] and here. Users like AussieLegend and Ravensfire tried to help him [12] but No success. Sid95Q (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This user created a new account after you blocked him for a week Bhawar Singh24072003 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Sid95Q (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: Thanks for the tip! I've handled it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are Most Welcome Sir

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Diya Aur Baati Hum/Tu Sooraj Main Saanjh, Piyaji

Hi Tu Sooraj Main Saanjh, Piyaji is sequel series to Diya Aur Baati Hum so why it is not valid for followed_by parameter [13]. Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: The |followed_by= and |preceded_by= parameters are typically used when we are indicating series within a greater franchise. The best example of this is Star Trek:

Star Trek: The Original Series (1966) is |followed_by= Star Trek: The Animated Series (1977), which is |followed_by= Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987), then Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

If we shift our focus, Star Trek: Voyager is |preceded_by= Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993). Star Trek: Enterprise (2001) is |preceded_by= Star Trek: Voyager. Then we have Star Trek: Discovery (2017) which is |preceded_by= Star Trek: Voyager.

Does that make sense? So for most series that are remakes, spin-offs, and adaptions, we use |related=. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This should be mentioned in television infobox than. Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: The Template:Infobox television documents do explain the intended usage a little bit, but if there's a way to make it clearer, please feel free to throw out some ideas at Template talk:Infobox television. If I remember correctly, a few years back I asked the community to try to explain what the intended usage was, but there were differing answers. The one thing I know is that it is not used to indicate what series previous aired in the 8pm slot (for example) or what series aired in the 7:30 or 8:30 slots. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Udu222

This is very interesting ... Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: I agree! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Repeat offender — unsourced and interpretive content.)

Hi Cyphoidbomb. I am afraid that either one day we might have to give up on pages like List of South African slang words or enforce real tough penalties for WP:OR. User Nelatti has now been blocked three times for the same thing, unsourced and interpretive content, but it looks as if he just could not care less. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I think it might be advisable to take this to WP:ANI so that there's a broader range of admin opinions being tapped into on this. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Will do, Cyphoidbomb. Called on you because you already know the history, but I get your point and agree. Thanks. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Thanks for understanding. I don't mean to pass the buck for the sake of passing it, I just think that sometimes in some situations it's good for me to hear other perspectives. Maybe another admin will have a better approach that I didn't think of. Also, I don't particularly want to be perceived that I'm on a solo mission to get this guy. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Protecting "Vinaya Vidheya Rama" page

Hi Cyphoidbomb,

Please protect the Vinaya Vidheya Rama page as vandals are constantly attacking it and vandalizing the genre. It's an action film and they're constantly making it comedy or satirical fantasy comedy. There's not a bit of that in the film and I understand they're doing so because the film has been negatively received and heavily trolled due to what they call "over-the-top" scenes. What actually hit me hard was that even you failed to notice that.

Please protect the page. These vandals with different IPs are really resorting to vandalism. Here you can see that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinaya_Vidheya_Rama&oldid=886494704 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinaya_Vidheya_Rama&oldid=886494743 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinaya_Vidheya_Rama&oldid=886259643

If you can do a little bit of browsing on your own, you can find this film was heavily trolled for its "unrealistic" and "illogical" scenes. Due to this trolling, a scene featuring the hero traveling between two distant states via standing on the top of a train and arriving within just 5 minutes was cut. There's another scene in which the villain is bitten by the snake and it's the latter who dies. Due to such scenes, the vandals are up with their nonsensical edits.

I can assure you they're vandalizing. It's not a comedy film, and that's not my personal opinion of a genre. It's REALLY NOT a comedy film. Period. (77Survivor (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC))

@77Survivor: I wouldn't be too surprised if I miss stuff here and there. I have over 15,000 articles on my watchlist. I can't be everywhere. Also, speaking of missing something, you seem to have didn't seem to notice this. I took care of it though, and I've protected the article for 3 weeks since it's a semi-new film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vipin Atley

With due respect, I don't know whether its your ignorance or arrogance to compare a film maker to a plumber. Even if considering they are mere works for bread and butter, have you seen any plumber's name being read out for the sanitary fixtures being used at home or workplace or whatsoever. The answer is a big NO , whereas in the case of film makers whether he's done a single or multiple films, he's name is being listed and read out by thousands of people who watch the piece of work. In case of my draft on Vipin Atley, there might be problems with the references being quoted but that doesn't give anyone the right to demean any works and calling the subject a mere day worker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najadh (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Najadh: I admire the fiery defense of someone you presumably don't know, but the point of my commentary is about properly establishing notability, and nobody is notable by default merely because of their occupation. Notability is not inherited, or assumed. It is the responsibility of the article creator to properly establish any subject's notability. There are thousands of films written, produced and directed. Do all these people deserve articles? No. That's why we have notability criteria like the WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. For your amusement, Thomas Crapper is a notable plumber. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for Thomas Crapper, was informative. I was in a notion that all the films made are article subjects as Wikipedia has been requesting the same listing all the movies produced in every part of the country and I've contributed some with the minute references I had as in the case of Vipin Atley for which no one questioned as you've done. Sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najadh (talk • contribs) 10:54, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

BookMyShow

Sir, is BookMyShow reliable for upcoming films such as this? I mean the movie hasn't released so how is "Booking a Show" relevant. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I wouldn't trust it as a predictor of something 9 months away. If a film is slated for release in December 2019, there should be an announcement of that somewhere. Even recent stuff probably has better media sources than Book My Show. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir, I have deleted it from Saand Ki Aankh. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Bhanwar singh vaish

Bhanwar singh vaish continues to be a problem child. I've had to warn him about adding an mp3 that he downloaded from a website and uploaded as his own work. It's now at FFD so he's moved on to creating categories, all with title case and some with strange naming, like Category:2019 Indian Television Singing season and Category:2019 Indian Television Reality Shows. He clearly doesn't understand categorisation. And then there is Category:List of DAV schools in India which is just a list. I pointed him to Help:Category and WP:CAT on my talk page,[14] but he either didn't bother reading them or doesn't understand. I fear the longer he edits, the worse things will get. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I've indeffed him until he can convince us that he is competent to edit here. I think this is a classic case of enthusiasm exceeding ability. Perhaps in a few years he'll know how to capitalise words properly... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

He's pretty young, self-described as 16, but your description is extremely accurate. I hate to see it come to this, but they keep charging from area to area causing problems everyplace they go. Hopefully they'll return in a year a two, a bit more mature and patient. Ravensfire (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Check this account MisterSingh2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Sid95Q (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: Thanks for the tip. Indeffed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nelatti at ANI

Hi Cyphoidbomb. I see that you had to step in again; my apologies for the delay in following up on your suggestion. It is now done, hopefully something will come of it. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Shreya Ghoshal

Please go to Shreya Ghoshal 's article and fix infobox template immediately. Otherwise it creates vendalisms. Thanks and please reply me after editing. Jay prakash bais (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jay prakash bais (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Kim Possible

I noticed your recent reversion of my edit on this page. I'm on the [[Wikipedia:Typo Team]|Typo Team], and despite Kim Possible having "good article" status, it had at least one spelling error, and ALLCAPS were used in reference titles. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters, which states in the All caps and small caps section that ALLCAPS should be reduced even if they were used in titles.

Ira Leviton (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton: Hmm, that certainly wasn't deliberate. I think I must have hit the "rollback" button by accident as my watchlist was scrolling or something. A clue, is that I didn't leave an edit summary, which I do for 99.9% of my edits. I have undone my erroneous reversion. Sorry about the confusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No apologies needed. Thanks for your prompt reply and re-reverting, and happy editing.

Ira Leviton (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Queries regarding Edits

I have been preparing a draft for a massive edit for the IUPAP page in my sand box. Original wiki page of IUPAP actually has nothing in the name of content. Plz tell should i send my edits fr review through sandbox or edit the whole page and write a long summary of edits

Regards Srijanx_22 Srijanx22 15:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijanx22 (talk • contribs)

@Srijanx22: Hi there, you can make edits directly at International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, but I would not just paste the content you have at your sandbox, as there are a number of significant formatting and Manual of Style inconsistencies present in your sandboxed article. I would also make sure that anything you add or change should be supported with references to reliable published sources. You should probably see Referencing for Beginners if you're not clear on how to do that. Any unsourced content may be removed, and any restoration of that content would require sources, so it's saving you a headache to add citations initially. You might also poke around our Good Articles and our Featured Articles to see if there are any articles on NGOs that might give you a good idea of what sort of content is, and isn't, typically included. I'm not sure that we would typically include a list of executive council in such an article, although key figures might intuitively be written about if warranted. But that's just my guess. Looking at similar articles might also give you ideas on how stuff is typically formatted. I hope some of this helps. If you have more questions, feel free to ask me, or you can ask at the Help Desk where you might get a quicker response. There are a lot of knowledgeable editors lurking there. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok after finishing my daft in the sandbox should I sent it for review as you have mentioned that there are certain inconsistencies, so in order to avoid further problems in my draft and thus add a proper edit. Thanking You Regards Srijanx22 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Is IndiaOnline reliable?

Sir, is IndiaOnline reliable especially if used in a BLP article like this one? It says the following in its welcome page

IndiaOnline.in brings you complete business, leisure, travel and tourism, weather, latest news and all other related information about India.

Seems unreliable to me. Kindly help - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I would be disinclined to use that as a reference. Looks like another faceless portal with no clear editorial control or guidance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Thanks for clearing that up sir. Need to revert it from Moloya Goswami - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Blogs from reputable news agencies reliable?

Sir, I cam across this blog from Times of India. It mentions "DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own" at the bottom. Doesn't it become unreliable after this disclaimer? Even the ID picture of the blogger is not the same as the celebrity he/she is trying to personify. Kindly advice - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It becomes self-published, which means it *may* be a reliable source, but it has to meet WP:SELFPUB. It also should not be attributed to the main domain, but only to the blogger. This is a pretty common issues with forbes.com/sites which is their blogging portal. Editors will proudly say "Forbes says XYZ!" but it's really just a blogger, not Forbes. Ravensfire (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it. I also don't like photo slideshows as references, because we don't know who puts those together, i.e. journalists or interns. And I am also not a fan of Box Office India question and answer pages, because again, nobody is named as the writer and sometimes the claims have been inconsistent with other claims. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe the blogger is Kushal Punjabi himself. The ID picture is of a woman if you see here - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ghaintpunjab.com

Sir can this be used? It seems like a Punjabi film related aggregator site. Didn't find any info about the editors, etc. I believe it should not be used in BLP articles atleast. Kindly advise. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I personally would steer clear of it. No indication of who runs it, not a known site, no clear editorial policy (some songs are in single-quotes some are not.) etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. A lot of Punjabi film related articles are using this website as a source and possibly quite a lot of BLPs as well. Can we mention it in WP:ICTFFAQ, in the unreliable section? Same with IndiaOnline discussed above. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

IPs fighting on my talk page User talk:Sid95Q

Hi can you check the conversation between 2 IPs on my talk page. There might be something useful there. Warm Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

VeronicaJoseph5

Need to speak urgent .... Need an Important discussion. I am a reputed journalist in Calcutta and i have added all relevant sources. Vinita Chatterjee is a well known bengali actor for all bengali audience. Therefore we have added all the relevant sources n No Blogs... Sources are Newspapers like Times of India, Ebela, Patrika Group, US Based Media Adbhut Media, Hotstar (Channel by Star Tv) etc. Not a single source is a private blog these are all reputed bengali, Hindi n English news portals. As per Bengali culture We donot prefer using Last name without Mr or Miss it is Disrespectful in our culture so i Changed Chatterjee to VINITA. Any other issues please tell me i want to clear all misunderstandings and Differences and give her the respect that she deserves. God bless @VeronicaJoseph5 and 01:04, April 14, 2019:

@VeronicaJoseph5: I appreciate your response. 1) Are you being paid to edit that article? If so, you must declare that per WP:PAID. 2) Re: the subject's last name, this is a global encyclopedia. The convention to not use her last name as a matter of respect is fine for Bengali publications, but per Wikipedia's style guidelines, we always refer to a subject by their last name unless there is some exceptional circumstance, i.e. in the case of patronyms. Please observe Wikipedia guidelines and do not restore her first name. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for trying to bring this somewhere near encyclopedic standards, Cyphoidbomb. I've started a discussion here [15]; if promotional edits continue I'll ask for page protection or user blocks. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Editor, we know miss chatterjee for a long time and all the sources added are credible and i dont need payments to tell the truth. When yesterday i saw some template i was surprised. We Bengali people admire Vinita mam as an inspiration and i felt concerned so i wanted her page to have no mistakes i don't even know who uploaded the original content. I saw something wrong so i helped by adding all Authentic Sources n Removing All Unwanted blogs. So now i made sure there is no discrepancy with the article. U can google about Miss Chatterjee. She inspires millions of us Bengali audience as she is our favorite artist. I wish respect is given to a good artist. Regards. Best wishes. VeronicaJoseph5 (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

After such a prolonged discussion the only reason i edited added the due respect to our celebrated artist is so that u see the genuinity and credibility of the sources and remove the template. May Peace n Goodness prevail. VeronicaJoseph5 (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

All discrepancies are mutually solved.

Hope we can mutually respect each others point of view just how i have accepted your style of editing hope u respect the content. On mutual trust i m finally removing the templates. Regards. God bless. Any other verification u can do.. As all the points are verified with credible sources. VeronicaJoseph5 (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

VeronicaJoseph5

I have to go to bed shortly but I am concerned that this is going to become a source of drama. And I note that you are INVOLVED in the article. If you think it would benefit from 48 hrs of page protection I will oblige. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I don't see the need for it at present, but thank you. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

More Vinita Chatterjee

What is the way to solve the templates issues? Can you please solve them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uttam Roy28 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Uttam Roy28: Well unfortunately since the person with the glaring conflict of interest took it upon themselves to edit the article, that template is likely to be there for a while. As for the other issues, I think they're fairly obvious: we need better references and more of them, (see WP:RS for guidance), we need the article to be written in proper neutral tone, not like a puff piece written by someone in the subject's family, and we need copy editing to bring it to a basic standard of English spelling/grammar/typography, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb review this page. I added better better citation.Junjathory (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

good job IsaiahTGothan (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal?

I was wondering if you could take a look at (User talk:69.126.32.165) there contributions, appear to be subtle vandalism of zoo article pages, at a minimum they are adding unsourced content.--Phospheros (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phospheros: Blocked 31 hours. If it continues please let me know. This batch of edits was problematic because of the WP:CRYSTAL violations, i.e. attempts to predict the future, and it's also unclear why they capitalised common nouns like hippopotamus. Maybe they're not too sharp with piped links, but the net result is sloppy. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Following the block the IP returned to there pattern of adding uncited information to zoo articles.--Phospheros (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phospheros: Blocked 1 week. If it continues after unblock, I'll block for significantly longer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The IP is at it again.--Phospheros (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phospheros: Thanks. Blocked 1 month. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Punjabi films of 2019

Hello sir, on the article List of Punjabi films of 2019, one user is again and again adding a non notable film “Gangster vs State” while i removed it. Please help! SangrurUser (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@SangrurUser: Well, you certainly create a difficult situation when the other user tries to engage you in discussion but you delete their talk page comment without responding. This is a community editing project. You should open a discussion on the article's talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS for your version. And remember that nobody is going to die if problematic content stays in the article until consensus is achieved. Lastly, I'm not sure how you are deciding whether films are notable or not. I personally find it very difficult when often Indian newspapers aren't so good with writing about things in depth. Are you familiar with our general notability guideline? The one criteria that seems to be the most important for films that have not yet been released, is WP:NFF, which states:

"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun.

So if you are objecting to the addition of the film to that list on the basis that the film hasn't yet begun principal photography, then you should say that. On a talk page. And point the user to WP:NFF. If there's some other objection that you have, then you should articulate that to the other user. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

OurDemocracy

sir,Souravshetty1 (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC) OurDemocracy page has been moved to draft can we please get an view of the contents which are promotional. In the content below.

(Redacted)

Souravshetty1 (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Souravshetty1: Remember that I pointed out that you also need to establish this company's notability. I left specific instructions on your talk page. As for your question about promotional content, are you really not able to see how the content in the article seems promotional? You basically just copied the entire OurDemocracy website, which, even if it were not written in a promotional tone, you would not be able to do, because of basic plagiarism and copyright rules. I've deleted much of the content to help you avoid getting blocked, but whatever other content you copied from other sources, you need to remove. I'm almost certain that the "Campaigns" content was copy/pasted from somewhere, I just don't have time right now to find out where you got it. Delete it! Start anew and write in your own words. Wikipedia takes plagiarism and copyright violations very seriously. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy on parentheticals?

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I feel like I remember you and I dealing with an editor a while back who was constantly adding parentheticals, who you ended up blocking. Though this is an unrelated situation, I'm curious if there's any policy or guideline which blatantly states that you can't add parantheticals? I'm dealing with a bit of difficult editor at the moment, who's apparently under the assumption that you don't have to follow any sort of manual of style as long as the information being added is correct. 1 (The information added in the aforementioned revision is correct, but it's unnecessary detail and the wording is clunky). I'd as soon just revert the edit again, but the editor is being particularly stubborn and has been adding a steady stream of biased-sounding crap like this for a while now. It would be good to be able to point them to some parenthetical policy, if there is one, so it's not just my opinion against theirs. Thanks in advance, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 22:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@KatnissEverdeen: Hi there, I don't specifically remember the user you are referring to, but I personally dislike parentheticals, because they are heavily overused, misused, and are certainly not the hallmark of the sort of professional-level content we are striving for. Indian television articles get heavily burdened with this problem. (See my Campaign of Ignorance page.) For instance:

"The situation is complicated by the hotel concierge, who thinks the gang has kidnapped a maid (who was actually kidnapped by the demon)."

could easily be

"The situation is complicated by the hotel concierge, who thinks the gang has kidnapped a maid, although she was actually kidnapped by the demon."

While I don't believe there is a policy or guideline that disallows parentheticals specifically, as I'm sure you know, competence is required at Wikipedia. While not everybody is as skilled at English as everybody else, if a user consistently adds grammar/spelling/typographical mistakes to articles, and even worse, if they are unwilling to yield to other editors who might know better and are actually stonewalling them, that is a problem and could absolutely be considered disruptive editing. Do you want me to say something to them? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, it's not relevant to the situation but the user I was referring to was RoseGirlXS. I agree with your sentiment about parentheticals being misused and looking unprofessional. That might actually be good for you to say something to them, if you're comfortable with it. Thank you!

Edit: Also, a discussion was created about this. If you could comment here, that would be great! Also see this complaint about me the user in question has put on another person's talk page. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a mess

See the message an IP editor posted at Talk:Theni Eswar (cinematographer). The article is here because Theni Eswar was recreated as an obvious promotional article so many times it was protected. The sourcing is bad and I doubt this would pass an AFD, but the post from the IP is concerning. Looks like undeclared paid editing by someone and COI editing by the IP. May bring this to the COIN board. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama

Although it is reliable as per WP:ICTF, but there's something fishy about some of its articles. For example one editor wanted to add content about a producer Kamini Dube into her father Hari Shankar Tiwari's article. Initially, I removed the content as it was citing IMDb here. Now he's come up with this from Bollywood Hungama which incidentally is written only today. I've deleted irrelevant stuff but had to keep this link which supports that Kamini Dube's father is Mr. Tiwari. I'm confused. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Interesting. The BH piece kind of reads like a press release, so it doesn't exactly surprise me that there might intersection between film promotion departments and Wikipedia. Since the trades, as professional as they think they are, are also notoriously bad with delivering basic information like the Five Ws, maybe this could work to our advantage: we object to content, someone at Bollywood Hungama writes a new article, problem solved! Anyway, keep your eye out. Although I'm being glib, it probably isn't ideal if people are writing press releases just to get promotional content into Wikipedia. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

maybe this could work to our advantage: we object to content, someone at Bollywood Hungama writes a new article, problem solved! Actually a part of me agrees to this. Would save us a lot of hassle.

This is not the first time, it happened before as well in some other article. I'm unable to recall now. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Check this one lol. This time by TOI and IANS after I reverted yesterday. Created today with exactly the same words 'spoof+comedy'. Coincidence! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Hmm, well I see that the word spoof was originally added here on 27 March 2019. (Actual phrasing: "cop spoof comedy".) I also see this article printed five days later which calls the film a "cop spoof comedy". So it's possible that some of these sources are idiotically parroting Wikipedia. Anyway, with this example in particular, it appears that "spoof comedy" has been out there for a while. 5 April, 12 April. Also, isn't "spoof comedy" redundant? I don't think I've ever seen a dramatic spoof. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, isn't "spoof comedy" redundant? - That's what I was thinking. I don't think I've ever seen a dramatic spoof - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Another one by Times Now here. Seems to have copy pasted from an old original research filled revision of the Madhoo article. Funnily it did not even correct her maiden name 'Madhubala' which it writes as 'Madhubama'. Photogalleries should not be trusted I guess. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Assistant needed

Hello sir, @Cyphoidbomb:

Sir I would like to request you about this article which I recently created Boss – Baap of Special Services, Firrkie, I M 24, Sab Kushal Mangal, Section 375. Please check whether this article comply with WP:N if they do not fulfill the criteria then please move this articles to draft space so that I work on it otherwise they would be deleted by any Wikipedia administrator. I have also requested for page protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for singer Darshan Raval, actress Ohanna Shivanand, and TV series Happu Ki Ultan Pultan because of annonymous user edit this article with improper details. Please do check my request. AR.Dmg (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@AR.Dmg: Well, you always have the option of asking StraussInTheHouse, who tagged two of the articles, what their specific objections were. Generally speaking there are two major criteria for films: our General Notability Guideline, which wants multiple mainstream sources (Times of India, Bollywood Hungama, etc) to write about the film in depth, or at least as in depth as they can when there may not be a whole lot of details for an unreleased film. The second is WP:NFF, which wants us to prove that an unreleased film has begun principal photography, since anything can derail a planned film production. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

AR.Dmg, I agree with Cyphoidbomb's assessment. It's very rare that we can solidly establish notability for productions not yet released, and notability tags can be removed if significant coverage is achieved after the release. When something is sure to be an international success (e.g. Untitled Avengers film), it's a different kettle of fish, especially considering the extensive sourcing. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello sir, @Cyphoidbomb: please assist us as a editor. To contribute to Wikipedia to grow and nourish it. please help me with the page protection for Dabangg 3 article. Because of too many unsourced edit and vandalism. AR.Dmg (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@AR.Dmg: Done for 3 weeks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Cyphoidbomb:. AR.Dmg (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello sir @Cyphoidbomb: I created an article on upcoming movie Raat Akeli Hai (film). But their is an issue a redirect. I did a mistake of moving the redirect to the draft space. And later submitting the draft for deletion. But my request is denied. It is not allowing the article of the movie to appear first in context if someone want to know the about the upcoming film. I request you to move my article from Raat Akeli Hai (film) to Raat Akeli Hai. As it is more reliable and relevant to the film title. And remove the redirect. AR.Dmg (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@AR.Dmg: I think this has already been fixed by JJMC89. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, @JJMC89: I'm sorry sir. I didn't see the changes. So I requested to you sir. And I'm thankful to both of you sir. AR.Dmg (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Highlighting the issue

Hello @Cyphoidbomb:

thanks for making my understand my mistakes and the Wikipedia policy. I tried my level best and I continue to do so. But I'm struck in few things. Such as a BLP Vicky Kadian is being mentioned in more than a few articles which I contribute and I think I should the matter highlights to you. And also I created an article on film about an biography of Indian farmer Lal Bihari titled as Kaagaz (film) when I was to link the article to the director Satish Kaushik. The it is already mentioned about Kaagaz but it's a redirect. So it's a humble request to you that if you could remove the redirect and the merge the article from Kaagaz (film) to Kaagaz. And it would be a great help. AR.Dmg (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@AR.Dmg: I'm not sure that I understand the issue you are raising. I have moved Kaagaz (film) to Kaagaz, however there was no redirect Kaagaz. At Satish Kaushik the wikilink is formatted like [[Kaagaz|Dharma Productions]]. All you have to do is delete the piped content on the right so it looks like [[Kaagaz]]. I hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Cyphoidbomb: sir this is a unuseful and uncontroversial edit and unnecessary clean-up in the article Dill Mill Gayye. Yeah I know the tv-series had been already aired and telecasted. So the article need clean-up. But it's irrelevant entry and deletions in the article cast and reception section. So it's would be great if you consider the article for wikipedia page Protection. And also assist me in the article Vilen (singer) regarding the issue I may had missed out in creating the article. It would be a great help sir. AR.Dmg (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@AR.Dmg: With regard to protecting Dill Mill Gayye, but I don't see many recent edits, let alone clear vandalism. You also haven't touched that article in a month, so it's not like you are being burdened with having to fix problematic edits. I'm unclear on what the problem is here. As for Vilen (singer) I don't understand what you are asking me to do, sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Kavach... Kaali Shaktiyon Se

Hi Can you protect this page. Same old Season 1 Season 2 page Issue where IPs and New users Disrupting the Main page thinking it is season 1 page. Warm Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: I'll have to look at it a little later. If it requires immediate attention, there's always WP:RFPP. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Technical Guruji

Hey, Please delete 'Technical Guruji (YouTube channel)' it's a redirect to Gaurav Chaudhary. No one gonna search Technical Guruji YouTube Channel, please delete this redirect page. And i will make 'Technical Guruji' redirect page to Gourav Chaudhary. Because gourav is known as Technical Guruji. - CptViraj (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Hey there, since you created the redirect, how do you feel about this request above? On the one hand, if someone searches for Technical Guruji, the Technical Guruji (YouTube channel) option comes up and takes readers to the Gourav Chaudhary article. On the other hand, I could create a redirect at the salted Technical Guruji site. @CptViraj: You won't be able to create the redirect because Technical Guruji has been protected due to repeated abuse. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@CptViraj:@Cyphoidbomb: thanks for the ping. As far as deletion redirects go, I subscribe to the viewpoint that redirects are cheap. As such, I would oppose deleting the redirect as it is a logical—if—low traffic redirect. As far as the Technical Guruji issue is concerned, an admin could considered creating a redirect at the salted article title. Thanks.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:@Cyphoidbomb: Okay Thanks , Regards - CptViraj (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)