Vinayachandranlovedr
|
Vettai edit
Because that's not how you write information in Wikipedia. Please write in an academic manner. Do not add the rating stars in between sentences and always keep proper format (italicize film names). EelamStyleZ talk 12:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Kunchacko Boban edit
Hi,
If the question is regarding the removal of Hit, Flop etc. from Notes section, it is the general wiki standard. No BO claims to be made without valid sources from trusted sources, with Budget/Gross figures. Another point is, Notes section is generally meant for providing relevant an Wikipedic information, like the ones provided there now. Budget and Grosss are as per guidelines, to be provided in individual articles. If it is regarding the Doctor Love and other articles, I only added 'Citation needed' tag, which is an improvement opportunity so that others can provide proof for the statements made, which are debatable.
Anish Viswa 10:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, possible. But since this is English Wikipedia, the articles should be in English for the Administrators to verify and also the hosting sites should be keeping the images permanently, else after sometime the images will be gone from there and the links will point to some other image.
Anish Viswa 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, possible. But since this is English Wikipedia, the articles should be in English for the Administrators to verify and also the hosting sites should be keeping the images permanently, else after sometime the images will be gone from there and the links will point to some other image.
Doctor love edit
Hello,
You provided a reference in Doctor Love thread stating that the film run for 88 days. Could you please tell where did the film run for 88 days? In the centres mentioned in the article, Thrissur and Changanassherry, as per my knowledge, the film run for 47 and 27 days respectively.
Anish Viswa 01:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The article Shritha Sivadas has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me 03:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The article Sugeeth has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me 03:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thank you! edit
For adding a reference to each of the two articles in question. Have a great week! --joe deckertalk to me 15:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Kindly have the patience to read and understand WP:FILM before you revert my edits. The review section cannot be written as a list even if it helps in readability. You can see any good or featured film articles such as Inception, Taare Zameen Par etc for confirmation. Thank You. 223.196.132.33 (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making unconstructive edits in film articles as you did in Spirit (2012 film), Ustad Hotel etc. Film reviews are not to be written in a bulleted or numbered list formats which is clearly instructed in WP:FILM. Thank you and happy editing. Madvirgin (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can't say it increases readability. Wikipedia has certain policies and "bulleting" the reviews are against the instructions given in WP:FILM. As the IP user said, if you check any Featured Article you can see that the reviews are written in continuous form only. Madvirgin (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can use simple HTML breaks as I now did in Ustad Hotel article. I discussed with senior Wikipedians and they confirmed that it is perfectly fine. Bullet lists are opposed since they add load to the article size. You can inform this to Madvirgin also.
Anish Viswa 09:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can use simple HTML breaks as I now did in Ustad Hotel article. I discussed with senior Wikipedians and they confirmed that it is perfectly fine. Bullet lists are opposed since they add load to the article size. You can inform this to Madvirgin also.
Requested MicaelQSchmidt to intervene.
Anish Viswa 04:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Stop spamming inappropriate reviews edit
Wikipedia only utilizes professional reviews Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response. Please stop spamming fan reveiws or you will be blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- even after being told non professional reviews are not allowed, you are continuing to add them [1] . You need to stop or your disruptive behavior will lead to you being blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
If you continue your disruptive editing across multiple articles to reinsert inappropriate reviews, you will be blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- reply: The Weekly World News has been published for DECADES longer than indiaglitz but it is still not a reliable source. the length of time that something has existed has very little bearing on whether or not it is an acceptable source. what matters is that it has an appropriate editorial review board and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy -and in this particular genre, whether or not the reviews are done by a professional critic. That is the hurdle you to need to establish before you can reinsert those reviews. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The article Housefull (2013 Film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- fails WP:NFILM no indication by reliable third parties that it has entered principal photography stage
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Housefull (2013 Film) for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Housefull (2013 Film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housefull (2013 Film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Reply edit
- Please bring this to the notice of Tinucherian (Wiki Admin - Malayali) and Salih (Senior editor - Malayalai) and request them to look into the edit pattern of RedPenofDoom.
Anish Viswa 08:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You need to sto edit warring to reinsert non professional reviews. You have not shown any consensus anywhere that we should allow non professional reviews because professional reviews are hard to find on-line. And you wont. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Housefull (2013 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The repeated reinsertion of non professional reviews against the projects policies and guidelines MUST STOP. This is your final warning to stop your disruptive behavior. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I was looking at this article as it's been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY. I think the main issue is the lack of reliable sources. If you know where some might be found, please add them - I know it's really difficult for non-English-language films. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Kunjananthante Kada edit
Please share your views on the deletion tag put on Kunjananthante Kada article. I improved the article with some reliable sources now.
Anish Viswa 04:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
stop adding non professional reviews edit
Please stop adding non-professional reviews to articles. Wikipedia content must be from reliably published sources and only professional film critics are considered reliable sources for film reviews. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced and non-reliably sourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:V and WP:RS. Some guy named Vincent is not a reliable source and it is the WP:BURDEN of the person wishing to include materials to demonstrate that the source is reliable . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced or non-reliably sourced material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
You need to stop edit warring to reinsert content from non reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
re your "excuse" [2] , "some guy named vincent posting on the web" is not a reliable source and it is the WP:BURDEN of the person wishing to include material to show that the source is reliable, not the other way around. Please revert yourself before you get blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
March 2013 edit
Your recent editing history at Rose Guitarinaal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui 雲水 14:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)- returning from a block for inserting inappropriate links to continue to insert inappropriate links is a good way to get blocked again for a longer time or even permanently. Please stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you add inappropriately sourced material to Wikipedia as you did with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As you have been told over and over, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response Wikipedia only uses the reviews of professional critics in reliably published sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
April 2013 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui 雲水 13:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Vinayachandranlovedr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
hai moderator, please understand the situations. nowrunning.com, indiaglitz.com etc have been reviewing the movies for many years and in a language malayalam one of the regional indian language you cant find ratings rotten tomatoes or anything only you can get are form some recognised sites. you can confirm this with any malayali moderator you have in your list and redpenofdoom user does not seem to be a malayali and thus he dont know anything about malayalam movies or reviewers and he is deleting the reviews and depriving users from information. pls lift my ban and take necessary action. Vinayachandranlovedr (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2013 (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.
You have been made aware - over and over again, on this page and others - that your addition of amateur reviews and inappropriate external links is not acceptable. That you would continue to do so immediately after coming off a block for that exact behaviour strongly suggests to me that you are not willing or able to work in a collaborative environment. If you carry on in this vein when your current block expires, you will be blocked indefinitely. Yunshui 雲水 13:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Silence (2013 Film) edit
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.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Silence (2013 Film). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Silence (2013 film). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Silence (2013 film) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. BOVINEBOY2008 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Vinayachandranlovedr. 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)
Pointless references edit
Hi there, re: these changes, you've added four totally pointless references to support The Great Father's gross. While manoramanews.com is generally fine, there was no purpose in adding onlookersmedia.in (a blog), filmibeat (which is generally not considered reliable per WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources), kboupdates.com (a blog), mollywoodtimes.com (a blog), and malayalamnet.in (yet another blog). Adding five crappy references doesn't make the data more believable. Looking at your talk page, it appears you have a long history of adding insufficient sites to Wikipedia. Please stop. Quickly familiarise yourself with our reliable sourcing guidelines and look at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a general run-down on the sorts of sources that are and are not suitable for inclusion. As a general rule, blogs and other faceless websites are insufficient for inclusion. Why? Because anyone can start a blog or a website and publish whatever they want. Unless you're in a position to argue that you know who the editorial staff is and why they should be considered experts in the field of Indian film finances, then you should not use that site. We only care what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about anything. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Vinayachandranlovedr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)