User talk:Anoopspeaks/archive

Orphaned non-free image File:Sandes AppLogo ios.png
Thanks for uploading File:Sandes AppLogo ios.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sandes SplashScreen ios.png
Thanks for uploading File:Sandes SplashScreen ios.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Mukesh G Cinematographer
Hi, Can you please help me create a page for my sir Mukesh G, he has done Cinematography for 11th hour(Telugu web series), Dear Dad(Hindi Film), Ism(Telugu film), Rogue(Telugu film), Paisa Vasool(Telugu film) and Nela Ticket(Telugu film) and many other ad films too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowshikchowdhary (talk • contribs) 05:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

i have no problem but i think you can create it yourself very easily Anoop Bhatia (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to create one as you've seen and it has been rejected and i've seen you reply that i need to add interviews or awards, can those interviews be youtube ones or should they be only newspaper ones? --Kowshikchowdhary (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Reception section
Re this edit, the effort is appreciated but simply presenting quotes and ratings is not considered encyclopedic. You might want to see MOS:TVRECEPTION, and WP:RECEPTION on how to write a reception section. You may also have a look at featured articles for what we are aiming at. Changes I made are far from perfect but I think you get the point. Thanks! -- Ab207 (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

GA review of 11th Hour (web series)
Hi, this notice is to inform you that 11th Hour (web series) has been reviewed and has been quick-failed; the article does not meet good article criteria.

There is some action that must be taken as copyright violation issues have been identified in the review process, with episode and plot summaries the largest area. Please view my comments at Talk:11th Hour (web series)/GA1 which contain a list of priority tasks and other suggestions for improvement. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, i didn't know that copy pasting the plot summaries cause copyright violation. I will try to fix all tasks as soon as i can. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Koo Android.png
He anoop, the photo you have added about KOO is a little bit of low resolution and is looking blurred on wikipedia, and as the app added and updated thinks on main page, can i update the photo of Koo Android.png? I was just asking your permission.Badassboy 63637 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Spotify Android.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Spotify Android.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Koo Android.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Koo Android.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Clubhouse Android.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Clubhouse Android.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Spotify Greenroom Android.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Spotify Greenroom Android.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Spotify Greenroom
Template:Spotify Greenroom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MasterChef India - Telugu (season 1) Poster.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MasterChef India - Telugu (season 1) Poster.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Plan A Plan B film poster.png
Thank you for uploading File:Plan A Plan B film poster.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Plan A Plan B film poster.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Plan A Plan B film poster.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

File:MasterChef India - Telugu (season 1) Poster.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MasterChef India - Telugu (season 1) Poster.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clubhouse (app)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clubhouse (app) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ProcrastinatingReader -- ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clubhouse (app)
The article Clubhouse (app) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Clubhouse (app) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ProcrastinatingReader -- ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Masterchef Telugu logo
Please kindly check all versions of Master chef India and also check official posters of Master chef Telugu in respective social media accounts. When I uploaded the official poster you just changing it into some unknown edit poster and it is not a official one, so please don't change it again. Pawan Sparkle (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Masterchef Telugu Logo
The logo which i uploaded in masterchef Telugu Wikipedia is taken from official Instagram account of masterchef telugu show so please kindly check the profile Pawan Sparkle (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Plan A Plan B


The article Plan A Plan B has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non notable future film, fails WP:NFF"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Donald D23  talk to me  13:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sandes Android.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sandes Android.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Session (software) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Session (software), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Spotify Greenroom Android.png
Thanks for uploading File:Spotify Greenroom Android.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamannaah Bhatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gopichand. 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) 06:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Jee Karda moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Jee Karda, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Twinkle1990 Please revert it because all references are independent news sites. On what basis you are saying all those sites are non reliable, and if these are not acceptable, how we will write the article? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aranmanai 4.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Aranmanai 4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Changing the spelling of sourced content
You've left a trail of altered quotes and erroneous edit summaries--please don't change sourced content and refer to your edits as typo fixes. They're not. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please remove the fan pov tag placed in Vijay actor article
Sir could you please remove the fan pov tag placed in Vijay actor article it's added by a Vijay hater user Arykun without valid reasons the small article is already neutral only with both positive and negative about him and they are placing fan pov tag without proper reasons kindly do the needsome sir.91.149.236.107 (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Tamannaah Bhatia, you may be blocked from editing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Krimuk2.0 I made the adjustments to the content for brevity and clarity, aiming to provide a concise overview without specific year details. This was done to streamline the information and maintain a more succinct presentation of Tamannaah Bhatia's career highlights. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not the standard in film bios. Check out how the best-quality film bio leads are written. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0 I apologize for the oversight. Nevertheless, the statement is still cluttered with years. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Stree 2‎‎
Your recent Bold edit at Stree 2 was Reverted. Per BRD, the next step is to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. &mdash; Archer1234  (t·c) 15:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Archer1234 I hope so🤞🏻. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
Your recent editing history at Stree 2 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Krimuk2.0 And on what basis are you reverting my edits? Your concern was mos:bold, even though I've never encountered it with any other articles before you pointed it out. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your lack of experience isn't my concern. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO -- you need to gain consensus for repeatedly adding irrelevant sub-sections that serve no value. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0 The cameo appearance section is not irrelevant, and I'm wondering why you are only interested in this article. The only advantage of removing this particular section is to change the cast order or even put cameo actors at the top of the list, as seen in some articles. It's not a good practice. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lol, that makes ZERO sense. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0 That's the point: a section groups the cameo artists at the bottom, while your approach makes it easier to place them in any order. Additionally, I feel it's misleading to suggest that boldface is your primary concern, rather than stating your actual issue, which is that the section is irrelevant. However, there are several articles that use this approach. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you wish to make logical arguments, please provide them in the article talk page in which I have started a discussion, and gain WP:CONSENSUS for the changes you want. Or else, I'm done engaging with anyone who says irrelevant stuff like "there are several articles that use this approach" and "your approach makes it easier to place them in any order" that make no logical sense. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Khushbu
This page hasn't yet been moved to Khushbu Sundar. There was a mistake in moving? Kailash29792 (talk)  05:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kailash29792 I am not a page mover, so when performed the page moved only the talk page was moved, i requested an uncontroversial technical requests to solve that. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
Your recent editing history at Aranmanai 4 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 'You have violated 3RR with over a half dozen reverts on just a few hours. This is a blockable offense. If you edit this page today I (or another uninvolved admin) will block you to prevent further disruption. I suggest you meet the other editor in page talk and discuss a solution.' BusterD (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @BusterD Thanks for the intervention; I will not edit the page further. Also, I am not the one who forces an unreliable claim onto the page. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @BusterD Also, I assume the page you are referring to is Aranmanai 4, not Aranmanai, because both pages are different, and I didn't engage in an editing war on the Aranmanai page. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the pagename which I mistyped. Thx. Please discuss this in the thread I've created in the talk page. BusterD (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @BusterD I replied, and I apologize for the delay because it took me some time to find the links. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Given name hatnotes
Paraphrasing a discussion I had with User:Paul 012:

"The reader shouldn't be distracted with information about which is a person's given name and surname before they even read a single word about said person. For names that follow the order most English readers would be familiar with, there is no need for such notes.

In given-name notices, the clarification is mixed in with an explanation on how to refer to people, which needs asking: who is this instruction meant for? If it's for editors (who might be unaware and incorrectly change the text), such messages should be given via in-source comments or edit notices, not hatnotes, which are for the reader. But if it's for the reader, such explanation isn't really necessary as it's deducible from reading the article, provided they know which is the given name. So the only concern would be that a reader unfamiliar with the culture may come upon an article, see references to the first name, and become confused as to which is the given name and surname."

Do you think this applies to, e.g., Tamannaah Bhatia? WBritten (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @WBritten The main reason I added this hatnote was that the article was renamed back and forth over the matter of treating Tamannaah as a mononym. If I remove the hatnote, it's likely that the next day a move request will come, claiming it's a mononym or at least change the title to Tamannaah from Tamannaah Bhatia. Also, in another case, when the hatnote was not present, editors began to rewrite the article using her surname, which contradicts how she is called in real life. These are the difficulties I face with this article, so I have maintained the hatnote. But I am open to your recommendations on this matter. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about using a footnote, like this?
 * Tamanna Bhatia (credited as Tamannaah Bhatia; born 21 December 1989), is an Indian actress who primarily works in Telugu, Tamil and Hindi cinema. WBritten (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @WBritten So if I change the hatnote to
 * Is this acceptable ? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this acceptable ? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this acceptable ? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this acceptable ? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

aranmanai 4
the last person who made the edit about the distribution of aranmanai 4 is true, (i watched the tamil versionc theatre print online and it did say that UFO Moviez is the distibution partner category) and for the hindi on, the hindi trailer was also released by reliance entertainment where it was shown that Baweja Studios and Karmic Films Distributed the film

Source:

BengalMC (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @BengalMC I reverted it because no sources were provided. It will take some time for me to gather sources and write about distribution. Additionally, there are no reliable sources available for UFO Moviez, and it is not mentioned on their website. Although we could write that it is credited in the picture, this claim would likely be challenged or removed by page patrollers. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stree 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stree 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Premature move
Hi, you recently closed the move discusion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X_(social_network)#Requested_move_24_May_2024 - The discussion didn't come to any clear consensus yet so the close was premature and should be reverted --FMSky (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @FMSky Most of the participants favored moving the article, and from my observation, the participants expressed their opinions. I don't think it's a premature move because it's a continuation of previous discussions, has completed its minimum discussion period, and has been stale for some time. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second FMSky here and request a bit further clarification on the closing rationale you used here (noting also that I was involved in the discussion). I'm counting 29 comments supporting and 20 opposing the move, which doesn't strike me as a clear consensus to move even before policy considerations are taken into account. I'm not saying the closure is wrong, but it's definitely contentious enough to deserve more of an explanation than just "per discussion". Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 16:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dylnuge Sorry for the short description; I felt it was not necessary to write an essay stating that X is not the microblogging site known as Twitter, nor to provide the vote tally, in front of experienced editors. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (Also involved.) Putting aside my thoughts on the merits of this case, a large amount of the opposition was about whether X is not the microblogging site known as Twitter, which I do not think was rebutted sufficiently. There are also a number of editors who give conflicting thoughts as what exactly to do - should the scope of the articles be altered? Combine this with what feel to me like confused editors conflating issues at hand, and I'm not convinced this was a good WP:NAC. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 19:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Brainulator9 The solution is not perfect. The correct approach would be to rename Twitter to X. However, that isn't happening, and keeping the name as Twitter is meaningless since the product is now called X and is different from Twitter. Referring to a software product that is entirely different from its predecessor by the same name constitutes misinformation. In my opinion, WP:Commonname is generally acceptable, but sometimes it does not align with common sense. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK now what about the part where there wasn't any consensus in the discussion? --FMSky (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @FMSky From my observation, more people supported the move. Considering this, and acknowledging the series of previous failed attempts with Twitter, I found it acceptable. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't a vote and I found it acceptable isn't a closing rationale. I'm genuinely seeking clarity on how you determined consensus. In particular:
 * Which comments presented the evidence that led you to determine that X is a software product that is entirely different from its predecessor?
 * Did policy impact your judgement of the arguments presented in any way, and if so, how?
 * How, if at all, did you sort through comments that appeared confused about the subject of the RM or added further stipulations (e.g. two users supported "with conditions" and their conditions were incompatible; I would personally find these quite hard to weigh in establishing consensus)?
 * You suggested above that the recent Twitter RM (and others) played into your closure; can you clarify how?
 * I don't mind that you gave a short closing rationale; it's normal to think something is uncontroversial and clear-cut and then find out after that it's not. However, we're now at the point where multiple editors are requesting clarity, and I'd personally appreciate a more in-depth answer here. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 01:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dylnuge If you believe microblogging is the same as X, no answer from me is going to convince you. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is X not a microblogging site? How so? 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS In the lead paragraph, "Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." If votes were used on an open encyclopedia, it would be extremely easy for bad actors to sockpuppet discussions and this move was premature. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 05:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Education Auditor I made the decision based on analyzing each comment. When the comments lacked clear consensus, I considered where they ultimately leaned. As you mentioned, achieving unanimity is not possible, but the discussion clearly leaned more towards the page move, and I supported it. Additionally, people asking me to explain each step of how I analyzed each statement is overkill. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A claim was made a number of times that "X is not the microblogging site known as Twitter". The statement "correct approach would be to rename Twitter to X" may imply partiality when combined with the statement that "keeping the name as Twitter is meaningless since the product is now called X and is different from Twitter" and that referring "to a software product that is entirely different from its predecessor by the same name constitutes misinformation." especially since no further information was provided to back this claim.
 * This may not be in line with WP:TITLECHANGES which states that changing "one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged" and that in "discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage."
 * WP:CRITERIA is a key policy used to determine article titles but writing things like "In my opinion, WP:Commonname is generally acceptable, but sometimes it does not align with common sense." is also unhelpful because the rationale used to not  want to follow a policy is that it isn't common sense? The reply given to a request for clarity above was "If you believe microblogging is the same as X, no answer from me is going to convince you.", which also may not have been constructive as it doesn't answer the questions and implies that X is not a microblogging site.
 * I hope that I'm not casting any aspersions or implying bad faith at all but perhaps it is understandable why a number of users are scrutinising the move? 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing against Twitter/X as I was conditional supportive of an article called X (social network). 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Education Auditor I am not well-versed in giving bulletproof replies, and I respond to everything within my capacity. Yet, the first thing in the morning, I am seeing more explanations required. I may have overreacted by shutting down with a short answer, sorry for that. Also conditions could be met while restructuring the document, and you may even find a better way of representing things while restructuring. I made the first move by moving the page. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It may have been more ideal to leave closing the discussion to someone who could've provided clarification for any resulting action. I believe you have acted in good faith so please don't feel upset. Take a break if you feel overwhelmed and don't see any comment here as reflective of who you are as a real person in the real world. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 07:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, I am still learning new things through the process. ☺️ Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly this was a very poor decision. There was not a consensus, and now we have two pages about the exact same website. The page was moved when it absolutely should have been closed as no consensus at most. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Di (they-them) My decision is based on an independent, impartial analysis of the discussion, and that analysis supported the page move. Angrily redirecting X (social network) and making several other edits, then copying my statement and calling it for a review, is not the right way to deal with it. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please WP:Assume good faith on Di's part. While redirecting the page to Twitter without any warning or discussion was wrong, they are legitimately bringing up concerns on your closing rationale.
 * I do however believe that your analysis is impartial and independent though. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Turtletennisfogwheat I kept the closing rationale short with the belief that it wouldn't create another controversy. The Twitter page move had failed several times before, and this page move was the aggregate decision of that discussion. Yet, the desire for a unanimous vote for such a controversial move is unbelievable. Also, thank you for your kind words. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not “angrily redirect” the page. I redirected it because I was confused, and to me it looked like somebody had simply duplicated the page. I thought that a mistake had been made, there was no anger on my part. My confusion was completely understandable and justified considering the fact that Twitter and X (social network) are the exact same thing and having two pages for the same thing makes no sense. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Di (they-them) I apologize for my rude reaction, assuming that you observed the page move and felt frustrated by it. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding, I accept your apology. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Di (they-them) ☺️ Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Move review for X (social network)
An editor has asked for a Move review of X (social network). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:X Accounts
Hi, seeing a few watchlist pings from you moving Category:Twitter accounts articles to Category:X Accounts. If this was the result of a discussion, where did that take place? And why is the "A" being uppercased? Belbury (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Belbury I am sorry that it was a typo, It should be X accounts. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You should have made a discussion or reached a consensus before making this decision. I will undo it for now until a discussion is had. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok Anoop Bhatia (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Aranmanai - 4
Hello Sir,

Could you please clarify the reason behind the removal of the content I contributed to the "Aranmanai 4" movie page?


 * @Asumathi005 Could you be specific about which content you are referring to? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Aranmanai 4 Movie Digital and Satellite Rights owned by Revanza Global Ventures. Asumathi005 (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asumathi005 This falls under WP:ABOUTSELF if the website belongs to Revanza Global Ventures; if not, it's self-published content by any third party to impersonate them. You can refer to Verifiability. Also, nobody can challenge you if you write it per approved sources by WP:ICTFSOURCES, Reliable Sources. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Meaning of "ce"
Hey Anoop, just a friendly heads up that "ce" in a edit summary generally refers to copyediting; i.e. grammar, spelling, and layout corrections that don't change the content on a page. Several of your recent changes to X (social network) are using that when they're making non-copyedit changes, e.g. replacing excerpt templates with content or making changes to article content and sourcing  is not copyediting and the edit summaries in these cases don't match the actual changes you're making. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dylnuge Ok, I will provide a better description going forward. Also, when replacing an excerpt, should I mention the source version of the article? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're copying from directly from the other article, that should be clear in the edit summary for attribution purposes (see WP:ATTREQ), but a better question is why you're replacing excerpt templates with copies of the current article contents to begin with. The point of the excerpt template is to synchronize content that's the same in both places; if you're not going to otherwise change the content, replacing the excerpt with a manual copy of it doesn't improve the article. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dylnuge Noted, thanks. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

9th South Indian International Movie Awards - Vidhu Ayyanna
Would you mind explaining how the subject fails WP:N and WP:V? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jeraxmoira The draft document failed twice. Also, I only see a single verified source about the subject per WP:ICTFSOURCES, and that source does not cover enough to publish it as a document. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The evaluation of a draft has no weightage over red links. The single verifiable source you mentioned is sufficient as the subject has played a major role in co-creating a collective body of work i.e. his filmography, see WP:CREATIVE #4.
 * For WP:V, you can verify the same on the respective film articles. His collective body of work has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Here is an example. Let me know if you need more reviews to verify.
 * W.r.t Biographies of living persons, it does not violate any of the sections listed on WP:BLP. There is nothing controversial or challengeable here, so unless you have other concerns, please add the red link back. Cheers Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira If the information is sufficient, why not publish the article and link the subject to it instead of providing a red link? I have no objection to creating a new article, but people often add red links, and they remain there indefinitely. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the purpose of red links? To indicate that sooner or later an article will be created about a likely notable person or topic by any interested contributor. It doesn't matter if it exists indefinitely as no one is on a timeline here, unless the article is full of red links, which messes with the readability. FWIW, the version you saw on WP:REDBIO has been reverted, as it was added by a sock without prior consensus. Either way, I have a separate draft here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira Then what's stopping you from publishing it? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I am still working on it. How does publishing an article relevant to your decision to remove the red links? Unless you have any policy grounds apart from the notability concerns which were addressed above, please revert your edit on 9th South Indian International Movie Awards and November Story. Unless you think that Wikipedia should not have any coverage on this subject, you are violating the editing guideline here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira Draft:Vidhu Ayyanna was declined by three reviewers for various reasons. This suggests that the subject may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. If you find this assessment contradictory, you should either prove the subject's notability by publishing the article yourself, since you are a page reviewer, or make the necessary changes to the article and call for a review. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As this is not a content disagreement, are you okay if we get an unofficial third opinion on this? The editor I have in mind is User:Robert McClenon, who seems to have worked extensively on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jeraxmoira I have no issues. If two or more people accept that your sources meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards on the subject, why should I object? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert McClenon. Would you be kind enough to provide an unofficial third opinion on Whether to add a red link of a likely notable person to an article? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a note about Baak
I modified the page to keep the bulk of your edit. The issue was that the table was including many names from the dubbed portions of the film (i. e. Shiva Shankar) and putting the name of the film in the infobox. The only parts of the film we care about are the original language portions and the reshot portions in another language (Telugu). If the reshot portions constitute a majority of the film, then you can put the title in the infobox, but notice how regardless, we will both languages in the infobox. The dubbed portions and character names hold no significance and can confuse the average reader to mistake it for a Telugu proper bilingual.

Only the two cast replacements matter in the Baak#Cast section since they were sourced in the Baak#Production section. The reshooting of other portions was not sourced so no need to include them. The new format reflects similar films such as Something Something (by the same director), Lakshmi (specifically the Telugu version) and Aakasamantha. Adding a cast table to any of the films can get confusing and tables are only needed for simultaneous shoots not partial reshoots. DareshMohan (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @DareshMohan What about the reference points because the end credits lack character names, Also do you know who distributed the film in Tamil? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the distribution, but I can readd the reference points sure. DareshMohan (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @DareshMohan Thanks. It's surprising that nobody seems to know the distributor's name for the Tamil version. Also, please take a look at the Aranmanai (film series) and correct any inaccuracies. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick to edit-war
Have you ever tried not hitting the "revert" button when "your" version is challenged? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Krimuk2.0 What's your objection of placing the particular foot note in the article? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0 Check this talk archive link Anoop Bhatia (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Literally no consensus exists in this discussion, except for a minor discussion that's abandoned halfway. Learn how WP:CONSENSUS is built instead of only indulging in WP:EDIT-WARRING. Making such a large claim that an "Indian person" should be referred to by their first name and not their surname needs a wide-scale consensus to be implemented across the articles of all Indians, and not just in one actress' bio. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0, there was no objection from the editor when I replaced it with a footnote as per their suggestion. I am not including this in every article, but I used it where individuals are referred to by their first names, which differs from their naming convention. I did not use the term 'Marathi name' because the person lacks middle name; instead, I used the term 'Indian name' because the person is of Indian origin. I do not claim that all Indians use this name format; the note specifically indicates that in this case, the individual is referred to by their given name. What's the issue with that? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the correct footnote might be that "this person is credited on-screen mononymously as Tamannaah", like Kajol or Cher. Deepika Padukone is not, so the article does not refer to her by her first name, but her surname. That has nothing to do with being Indian. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0 No, that's incorrect. She is credited with her full name, but in interviews, she is first addressed as Tamannaah Bhatia and later called by her first name, contradicting the naming convention where a person is addressed by their surname. Also, on most occasions like events or at the airport, people address her by her first name. I pointed out this difference in how she is addressed. Being called by a first name doesn't mean it's a mononym; if that were true, most South Indians would not have surnames. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous reasoning. You think Deepika Padukone is called "Padukone" in her interviews or Akshay Kumar is called "Kumar" in interviews and in the airport. In formal writing, such as in Wikipedia, people are referred to by their last name, unless they are mononymously credited or use a patronym. Simple. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in for a suggestion. Try to find an appropriate hatnote, like the one used for Rashmika Mandanna. That's much better than a footnote. Keivan.f  Talk 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Keivan.f However, her surname is her family name, not a patronymic, so the most neutral note was to exactly copy the Given name hatnote. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why I said we should find an "appropriate" hatnote. But I would still discuss it with the other user before adding it to avoid further edit warring. Keivan.f  Talk 13:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Keivan.f Wikipedia uses that template for such cases, and I don't understand the problem with such a neutral note. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just answer one simple question. Why are Deepika Padukone, Priyanka Chopra, Anushka Sharma, etc referred to by their last names in their article? Padukone, Chopra, and Sharma are their family names, same as Bhatia is for Tamannaah. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0 🤣 So, your problem is not with "Indian". I gave up 🏳️ and am giving you the honor of correcting the articles in Western format. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered my very simple question. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Krimuk2.0 What else should I say? Your argument proves me wrong, and I let you fix it, but it seems you have no intention of doing that and are just tagging it. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Spare some time?
Hi, there is a move discussion at Talk:Public Sector Undertakings in India which is receiving less participation and is likely to be closed without a clear consensus. I would greatly appreciate if you could spare some time and leave your valuable opinion. Thank you. Have a great day. 2409:4073:104:92C2:9939:2182:D47D:646F (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Tamil films of 2024
See List of multilingual Indian films. I think the note for Aranmanai 4 is not needed since the film is mostly dubbed and partially reshot. Other year listings pertaining to such films with straight certificates such as Aakasamantha (albeit released in 2009) doesnt have the note. DareshMohan (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @DareshMohan In the case of Aakasamantha, the film was released after the original film, and based on the time frame, people can assume that it was definitely a reshoot. However, in the case of Aranmanai, there is no report stating that the Telugu shots were made after completing the Tamil film. Also, considering the scenes and the simultaneous release window, is it wrong to say that it was partially shot? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel it adds unnecessary confusion. Many such films pre-2009, such as Run have a dubbed certificate for the Telugu version although the film features close to half an hour of reshoot comedy footage  (albeit the Telugu version released later). Not sure if Baak even has this much reshoot footage.


 * The best example is Mallanna which has a straight certificate and released on the same day as the Tamil version. This video contains a mix of dubbed and reshot footage with the reshot footage maybe amounting to 15 minutes.


 * If the footage is only a good fifteen minutes reshot, it is not a good idea to add a note to List of Tamil films of 2024 because without a doubt it is a Tamil film. It is currently mid year and maybe there wont be any more bilinguals but several footnotes can confuse the reader. If the reshot footage was more than half an hour, then it makes sense to add it. DareshMohan (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @DareshMohan If it confuses the reader, you can remove it. I included it because the # says "... simultaneously." and I felt it was good to specify how much was shot. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @DareshMohan Additionally, I didn't precisely measure the length of the reshot footage in Aranmanai. From what I observed, it seemed to be under 30 minutes. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Luke Coutinho
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Luke Coutinho, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Anoopspeaks&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1232325708 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Coutinho&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1232325708%7CLuke%20Coutinho%5D%5D Ask for help])