WillShowU

Please don't remove valid templates and embedded notes

Hi, please don't remove valid templates and embedded notes as you did here at Singam II. This template exists to communicate to other readers that box office values are estimations, and the note exists to instruct other editors not to remove the template. (Something you should have observed.) Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Dilwale (2015 film) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Dilwale (2015 film) was changed by WillShowU (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.959156 on 2015-12-19T04:56:27+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Rude

Hey there. Cluebot-NG is a bot, but any editor should be treated with respect. Please do not harass or insert personal attacks to other editors in edit summaries, talk pages, etc... Welcome to Wikipedia, and let me know if you have any questions. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Improper removal of sourced content and unsourced summary of critical response

Hi there, your edit here is problematic, because you've removed box office gross content with an erroneous justification "worldwide gross is added after full run". There is no such guideline at MOS:FILM, and I don't think that an editor with fewer than 30 edits should be making unilateral proclamations like that. The |gross= parameter of Template:Infobox film is to be used for the worldwide gross per the template instructions. Per normal editing, this value is constantly in flux while the film is in theaters. Now, as it turns out, the gross value was not consistent with the reference, but in that case, the value should have been fixed, not removed.

Additionally, you should avoid summarizing critical response the way you did here. Summaries of overall critical response need to come from reliable published sources, and even then, one site saying "the response was mixed" constitutes WP:UNDUE, since we shouldn't be giving undue weight to one voice. In Western films we have Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores to help arrive at these summaries, but they are not always in alignment, and there is no WP:ICTF approved equivalent for Indian films. Further, there's no real value in summarizing what is already a summary: the aggregator scores. Cherrypicking reviews and then summarizing that selection is not how we do business here, because an editor could easily come by, add 10 negative reviews, and shift the critical response to fit his point of view. Too easy to abuse. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Dilwale (2015 film). Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Diff: [1] As previously noted, worldwide gross is the intended use of the |gross= parameter of Template:Infobox film, and again, you don't get to unilaterally issue edicts about the use of this parameter. Common film editing practice is to update it as necessary while the film is out. If you don't like that, you can take it up with WikiProject Film, or you can seek a local consensus through discussion at Talk:Dilwale (2015 film), but in the interim, common editing practice will prevail, and any deviation or attempt to take ownership of the article will not be tolerated. Please tread carefully because you're on the brink of having your editing privileges interrupted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dilwale (2015 film).
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Dilwale (2015 film) was changed by WillShowU (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853175 on 2015-12-21T10:12:06+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you present the estimate range?

In this edit you indicated that the estimated gross of Dilwale is 150 crore, however the reference you used presents a range 145-150 crore. Why didn't you present this information as it appears in the source, as a range, instead of picking the highest end of the estimation? Please feel free to reply here as I have added your talk page to my watchlist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

hi

Hi GrunZ boY (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please add your response to the discussion? Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Your addition to Dilwale (2015 film) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Diff: [2] Content added in this edit can be found verbatim here. You may not copy or even closely paraphrase content from other sites like this. Plot summaries must be written in your own words, from scratch. If you're not capable of this, don't try it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Dilwale (2015 film), you may be blocked from editing. Stop it now. D'SuperHero (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

COI

Hello WillShowU. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Dilwale (2015 film). Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:WillShowU. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=WillShowU|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing on Dilwale (2015 film). If you "dont have the time to take a silly thing to the talk page,"[3] (and apparently don't have the time to discuss at all, or respond to anything posted on your own talkpage, or respond at the WP:ANI discussion you have been invited to), you probably don't have time to edit Wikipedia at all, because Wikipedia works by discussion. It's not for a single person to decide what we "will" do and try to enforce it by edit warring; it is for consensus, as created by discussion amongst editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 16:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop editorializing in articles

Re: your edit here, stop editorializing in articles. "The film had a good first week total" "The film went on to record a huge first week in" represent opinions that you have not directly attributed to a specific voice. Adding this garbage only serves to promote the subject, which will not be tolerated. If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be editing any Wikipedia article. Stick to the facts and leave the promotional nonsense out of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY

In this edit you removed a crucial piece of information, that the film's producers are the source of the 215 crore number. Surely you must understand why it would be academically dishonest to present as a fact the box office numbers reported by a primary source, right? Because you surely know that the film's producers would have every reason to manipulate the box office figures, which presents a serious conflict of interest. Please note that I do expect your response on this point, and if I don't get a clear acknowledgment, back to ANI we'll go, because of your history of questionable, promotional edits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Box Office India bias

You seem to be demonstrating a Box Office India bias. [4][5] This looks to me like a continuation of the disruption you caused as WikiBriefed. Do you have a coherent explanation for why you think one set of guesses is more accurate than another set of guesses? Please feel free to respond below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

24 (2016 film)

I think you should better read about policies to use an image on Wikipedia. You can't keep on uploading new posters with incorrect rationale as well as no source(s). Take a note of that. The page isn't meant for promoting an images or films. One poster is enough. Moreover, in mean time, an official poster would replace all that what you had uploaded. Arjann (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dilwale (2015 film)

Don't revert the old collection or wrong information. The reference shows other. Koimoi.com shows it crossed 3.8 billion INR. Please go to the reference and check. ARNAB22 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Dilwale (2015 film). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Diff: [6] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism! You continue to remove sources claiming they are unreliable, they are not did you even look at them? (101.160.140.144 (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC))

Dilwale, again

Hello. Please stop your disruptive edits. Do not replace a reliable recent source with an older source with a lower gross figure. Thomas.W ^talk 15:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. w^{L<speak·check>} 10:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  only (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

unblock

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

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

---

Request reason:

What the hell did I do to get blocked. I only added a better source and it was as recent as the previous one. If you have a disagreement, you can talk to me about it. You don't go and block straightaway. Just because someone is an admin, you cannot do anything you want. 60% of the constructive edits on that page was done by me. You can check if you want. Its not like you guys own the page. I have not done anything wrong. And I deserve to be unlocked right now. If you don't, I am going to inform such atrocities directly to the Wikipedia servers.

Decline reason:

I'm seeing 19 (if I counted correctly) messages above about disputes with your editing (not including one referral to ANI) without a single reply from you, a previous block for the same reason, personal attacks in edit summaries, a claim that you "dont have the time to take a silly thing to the talk page", and no talk page discussion of your contested edits whatsoever. That is most definitely not blocking you straightaway without talking. Now, you might think that your own time is too precious to spend discussing disputed content, but that's what Wikipedia's policies require of you if you wish to edit here. And when blocked, you need to address the reasons you were blocked rather than just demanding to be unblocked with a threat that you will "inform such atrocities directly to the Wikipedia servers" (whatever that means). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2016 (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.

People HAVE talked to you about it. I don't see a single piece of evidence of you talking about it, though. This is only your second ever edit to any talk page. And I didn't block "straightaway." I blocked you after you had been warned and after you had been previously blocked for the same exact issue. Also, how exactly will you "inform such atrocities directly to the Wikipedia servers"? only (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  w^{L<speak·check>} 10:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WillShowU. 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)

You are back

I see you are now editing as User:EntePonnuDinka among other accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.199.25 (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)