Sapian sam

It's my talk page so contact me or come and talk to me in these page.

Sapian Sam.

2.0 budget

This edit, where you make a demand that the budget value not be changed, is not constructive, as there is 1) a discussion about this on the article's talk page and 2) sourced content from a typically reliable source (Bollywood Hungama) expressing doubt about the super-high figures. If this is an issue you care about, participate in the discussion, but making unilateral demands that figures not change, and throwing out valid references is not going to fly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

2.0 gross

Re: this edit, I looked at that entire first obnoxious referral link https://indianexpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/tamil/2-0-biggest-box-office-challenge-baahubali-2-5469003/lite/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Findianexpress.com%2Farticle%2Fentertainment%2Ftamil%2F2-0-biggest-box-office-challenge-baahubali-2-5469003%2F and I don't see any 985 crore claim. Care to point it out? I'm going to give you an opportunity to justify why you used a garbage, convoluted reference to assert a very high box office figure that doesn't appear in the link you submitted. Got anything to say? If you can't quickly provide a reasonable explanation for this box office exaggeration, I'll interrupt your editing privilege. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The-Numbers.com

The-Numbers.com is a reliable source. You should not remove reliable sources from articles. Even if Box Office Mojo temporarily has more up to date figures than The-Numbers.com that is not a good reason to delete references to The-Numbers, especially not without giving a clear and specific reasons. -- 109.79.95.12 (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film makes it clear that you do not get to "cherry pick" budget sources. You can't delete The-Numbers merely because you prefer Box Office Mojo.

I've repeatedly tried to explain this but you continue to make UNWISE edits and fail to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules. Stop deleting the Numbers for no reason, I don't want to have to report your disruptive editing. You should always explain your edits and especially deletes with an edit summary, and failing to do so at this stage shows a lack of good faith. Look at the edit History for an article, read the edit summaries before repeating edits that have been reverted and explain yourself properly. -- 109.76.211.117 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Named references

You need to read the documentation on Named References until you understand why these two edits [1] [2] were both incorrect. Please stop. -- 109.77.237.77 (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I noticed that you recently removed content from Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Diff: [3] It's unclear why you removed sourced content that presents the Manikarnika gross in the form of a range when it is clear that there is a difference of opinion among the reliable sources. Your stern admonishment "don't change Box office" is toothless, and you don't get to unilaterally decide what the "correct" figure is. We go with what reliable published sources say, not what Sapian sam says. Disagree? Your recourse is to open a discussion on the article's talk page. If you resubmit this content without a consensus, it will be considered disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, please stop submitting links like this. You can't just copy the Google search result link, you need to submit the direct article URL. So instead of this:

https://www-zeebiz-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.zeebiz.com/india/news-total-dhamaal-box-office-collection-ajay-devgn-anil-kapoor-madhuri-dixit-arshad-warsi-87112/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeebiz.com%2Findia%2Fnews-total-dhamaal-box-office-collection-ajay-devgn-anil-kapoor-madhuri-dixit-arshad-warsi-87112

You need to submit this:

https://www.zeebiz.com/india/news-total-dhamaal-box-office-collection-ajay-devgn-anil-kapoor-madhuri-dixit-arshad-warsi-87112

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your suggestions and now I will be very careful about this. Sapian sam (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio

Your addition to Total Dhamaal has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Xain36 {talk} 01:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sapian sam, a copyright violation is a big deal. If you cannot write plot summaries in your own words, do not copy from other sources. Leave the space blank. If you do this again, your editing privileges will be interrupted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Last warning about poorly-formatted references

Re: this, I'm getting tired of warning you about the dodgy references you keep adding. If you don't understand the difference between a referral link that filters you through cdn.ampproject.org and a reference that points directly to a normal domain like indiatimes.com, I don't know how to educate you. But the recurring net result of submissions like these seems to be mostly unusable. Also, when did anyone decide that latestly.com is a reliable source? I don't see anything at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources that would justify that addition and we don't use random websites/blogs/portals as references. Last shot: Read WP:RS, read WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources, read WP:ICTFFAQ, and read Referencing for Beginners. Any more problematic referencing like this is likely to result in an interruption of your editing privileges. It's not okay that your sloppy copy/pasted references require fixes from other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Missing (2018 film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diff: [4] Wikipedia is not your personal blog. If you want to opine about a film's financial performance or critical response, open up a Twitter account and publish whatever you want. But at Wikipedia, we only care what reliable published sources have to say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit and improvements for article. Thanks you. 58.187.77.36 (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maari (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blockbuster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

2.0 film

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2.0 (film), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Don't remove reliable sources Panda619 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Left head?

Ok. I give up. How can you tell the heads apart? RobP (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Highly questionable edit

This doesn't look like a good-faith edit, to me. There is clearly a well-sourced discrepancy in the Kabali financial figures reported by various trades, yet you are deciding that only one, a figure from Box Office India, is the correct one. How do you justify that? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Its vs it's

Re: this, you used the wrong word. "Its" is possessive, as in "The film grossed 370 crore on its first week". "It's" means "it is". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Over time you have raise questions about your competence, you have added poor references, you have added copyright violations, and made edits per your own POV (Kabali). Most recently, these edits introduce hyperbolic, non-neutral language, since encyclopedias don't drool about a film's "massive" box office take. In these same edits, you copy/pasted content that was found here, which isn't acceptable anywhere in academia, and is a serious ethical violation. Since you have never responded to any previous notice, I'm not confident that you fully understand the issues you've been warned for, so I am blocking your account indefinitely. This does not mean forever, but it means for the foreseeable future, until you can convince a reviewing administrator that you are competent and that you understand the issues you've been warned about before. I think any admin will also like to hear you explain why plagiarism and copyright violations are wrong. Note that you, the person behind this account, are not welcome to edit at Wikipedia as long as this block remains on this account.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)