User talk:Aruvn

Unsourced summary of critical response
Hi there, please do not add unsourced summaries of critical response as you did here, where you personally decided that response to the film was mixed. It is not our place to cherrypick reviews, then summarise that selection, because we'd be reinforcing our own biases if we did that, or we'd be reinforcing someone else's selection bias if we came around to an article with a selection of reviews and summarised it. Summaries of critical response need to come directly from established reliable sources per MOS:FILM guidelines. Editors may not draw conclusions, especially about subjective matters, as this constitutes original research. Side-note: Please don't use IMDb as a reference, per WP:RS/IMDB and WP:UGC. IMDb is user-contributed, and therefore insufficient as a reference. Similarly, we don't use blogs as references for the same reason. Also don't give credits of the writing as per controversies but on the basis of the movie's credits.Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Simran (film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''Diff: It's not your job to describe something as "fascinating". That subjective language is fine for your blog or a Twitter post, but not for a neutral, objective encyclopedia.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, as I look deeper, it seems you copied the phrase, perhaps from here. This requires me to now lecture you about copyright violations and plagiarism. "DO NOT COPY" is a basic academic concept. Copying is lazy and intellectually dishonest and is held in great contempt across all of academia. Do not copy content from other sources and add them to Wikipedia, please. If you do it again, you will be blocked. Copyright violations and plagiarism don't make the encyclopedia better. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Film plot
Aruvn, actually, I did understand your point, but I'm afraid you didn't get mine. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, which means we do include material such as film plots with spoilers. If you read the WP:SPOILERS page, you see that we do explicitly include plot spoilers without hiding them. You may not want to read the full plot, but others do. I'm going to restore the full plot again, please do not remove the full details now that you've had Wikipedia's norms explained to you.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Aruvn, with regard to your comments here, your understanding of Wikipedia norms is a bit off. Before a film is released, we don't know what the film is about, because none of us have seen it. Thus, plot sections are fairly short, because we have to make sense of the brief logline that might be published in a source: a la "Shah Rukh Khan plays a detective on the search for stolen pineapples in Lebanon." Once a film is released, editors have seen it and can summarise accordingly. Ravensfire is correct that per WP:SPOILER, we don't censor spoiler content. The point of an encyclopedia is to convey information and the point of a plot summary is to summarise the plot in detail. Readers have 400-700 words to do so, per WP:FILMPLOT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Padmaavat, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Anmolbhat (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)