User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 15

Sockpuppet investigations/Georgemohan88‎
Can you keep a watch on this account/socks? He's already created one sock impersonating a notable person and I suspect the new account is his too. Loads of copyvios with exif changing and all that stuff on Commons. You may see some tell tale signs on the articles you cover related to low key south Indian cinema. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'll keep it in the back of my head. I'd need some real-world experience to form a mental profile, though. Thanks for the tip! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Cbooo
The site is related to and probably belongs to entgroup (see the link at the top of the site). Entgroup is used as a source for Chinese box office by Variety. I could use their English site, which is what I presume Variety uses, but since the films are Chinese, I think it's more appropriate to use the gross in the local currency and that's not available on the English site, only on cbooo.--Cattus talk 10:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot the example you gave was Baahubali... In that case, since its a foreign film, I think it isn't necessarily more appropriate to give the gross in yuan, dollars would be ok too.--Cattus talk 10:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Lego Ninjago-related
Hi, I have noticed that you have done some work over at the character page of Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu. As the cast for The Lego Ninjago Movie has been announced, should we add the confirmed roles to the character page just like if anyone is to add who voiced the characters that appeared in Lego Dimensions? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , that sounds like something you should open for discussion at the character page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That can be something that I'll get to today. Also, I had to correct a link to the show in the last message because I misspelled Spinjitzu. If that is considered trolling, I apologize for what I had to do correct the misspelling of the word. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why that would be considered trolling. Typos happen. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Parameters
Dang I guess I figured it wouldn't harm anything to include a film in 'preceded by' if there wasn't any appropriate TV series to put there. Even if it was allowed I guess it could get cluttered since every single film a princess was in who appeared could then qualify and it'd be like a dozen lines long. If anything were to qualify I think it would be Sleeping Beauty since Flaura/Fauna/Merryweather are recurring cast members and not 1-shot guests summoned from who-knows-where like the princesses are. I figure Elena of Avalor qualifies in 'followed by' since it's a spin-off. Chronologically speaking I am not entirely sure where this story takes place in respect to Sofia, it might actually be a prequel. I don't recall much about the 'Amulet of Avalor' or what was mentioned of Elena in St1. I figure 'followed by' meant by our timeline though not the in-show timeline. Ranze (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * to your point about bloat: exactly. I don't quite understand the parameter myself, and the time that I brought it up, I got confusing answers. I thought for sure that some of the Law & Order and CSI shows were using these parameters, but I see now that they are not. So I don't quite get the use of the parameters myself, but I do know when not to use them. :) Here's a link to that discussion . Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

CB as a heads up, I'm watching the summary at the start of Elena of Avalor right now, and it makes it very clear that this happens after the upcoming Sofia the First TV-film "Elena and the Secret of Avalor", so I think that supports a definite preceded/succeeded Sofia/Elena relationship. Even if Sofia keeps airing, it's had 3 whole seasons before this and all of those events precede freeing Elena from the Avalor amulet. Any objections to changing related back to pre/suc? Ranze (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think you might run it past WT:TV to see what the learned among them might have to say. I would do the same, frankly. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Lego Ninjago character discussion
As I had vowed to do yesterday, I had started the discussion on the talk page of List of Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu characters for the voice actors in other Lego Ninjago projects if you would like to get involved with the discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

DRN comment
It may be more effective for the process to add your statement in the opening statements section and add a very short reply to the moderator's questions. I haven't been involved in a DRN before so the process is interesting seeing how one is done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , It seemed weird for me to add it to "Summary of dispute" because I wasn't involved in the dispute, so summarizing my perspective of the dispute seemed an odd thing to do. I just wanted to rant! Anyhow, I've moved it. I'll leave it up to the moderator to figure out what to do with my interference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is weird to me too. This issue was basically resolved on the talk page and one editor didn't like the result there. Tried to win by outlasting the interest of the others to be the last one standing in that discussion. I think the next step if you wish to continue is to read questions in § Third statement by moderator and add direct replies to him in the form he requested at § Third statements by editors, possibly mentioning your opening statement. Basically we are talking only to the moderator in this forum. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock
Thanks for your recent comments about Sage of the Six Paths. I have unblocked the account. Unfortunately, experience shows that in cases like this very often the block is back in place soon, but it is far from unknown for an editor to genuinely change, and giving them a chance to do so usually doesn't cost much, as a re-block is easy to do. Well. we'll see how it goes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you all around. Thanks for joining me in "good admin/bad admin" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Question
Why did u block me for a week! How am I distrubtive editing! It's doesn't mean that am the last person who edited means am the one who did that change! And am adding and taking away simple things NOT BIG THINGS! Before you come and see what am doing, go see other series/actors/singers etc. Wikipedia and fix them! You know I don't fix them because am NOT SURE of the informations because I DON'T WANT to put FAKE information! Roseness 12 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * C this was buried in another thread at the top of your talk page so I've moved it to the bottom and added a header. Please feel free to change it if you wish. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Box office figures of PK
Hi sir. I saw User:Vibhss updated box office figures of film PK from Rs.741 crore to Rs.792 crore citing an article published by Koimoi as source. But that's not considered a reliable source as per WP:ICTF but The Indian Express is a reliable and trusted source as per WP:ICTF. A recently published article by this site supports 792 crore figures. I have updated the figures again as per this source. You can find many articles supporting these figures. International Business Times (another "reliable" source as per WP:ICTF) too supports these figures. In both sources, you will have to read thoroughly. I think now these figures are supported by good sources and clearly are in accordance with Wikipedia and WP:ICTF. What do you say ? (Please don't say, these are news articles related to another movie "Sultan", since the source supporting 741 crore figures too wasn't centred only on PK.) Besides, all my sources mention the top players with their earnings. Regards. Digangana (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - I don't have a problem with it. Note that if there are competing opinions from varying sources at around the same time, it might be prudent to present the gross estimate in the form of a range. However, since there is sufficient time distance between the two estimates, I don't have a problem. If someone else does, you should discuss it on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Adminship anniversary
Wishing Cyphoidbomb a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, has it been a year? Thanks ! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Whooosh time sure flies by. Best regards on your Happy Anniversary C!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Happy anniversary Cyphoidbomb! Many more happy years ahead for you!! Audit Guy (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sage of the Sixth Paths
I don't why was his account was blocked, but the user has done some constructive edits in some articles like List of Black Butler chapters. So even if he is blocked again, please leave some articles intact. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - The user was blocked for generally disruptive behavior including persistent unsourced additions, persistent editing while logged out (in some cases to avoid scrutiny and engage in edit-warring), and for persistent copyright violations. After being blocked, they continued to edit while logged out and even created another account, Kaido of the Beasts. Per WP:REVERTBAN any editor who engages in sockpuppetry, as this user did, can have their edits reverted regardless of whether or not they were constructive. I'm certainly not going to be bothered to sift through a problematic user's edits to try to figure out what was constructive and what was not. If this is something you'd like to do after I revert their edits, you're welcome to do so. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to drop you a light that he has once again engaged in copyright violations, this time coping the plot summary to List of Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn episodes from Crunchyroll and also a summary List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 20), which he copied the Naruto Wikia without any attributions. He has been caught lying before about his past copyright infringements and block evasions. I have no idea why he was believed when he said he was reformed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - For fuck's sake, really? Jesus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait just one second, before we start arguing, for Gundam Unicorn, I didn't know cause I don't use Cruchyroll since they charge. Cyphoidbomb don't jump to conclusions just yet, I'm already following yours and JamesBWatson's advice. Sage of the Six Paths (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "I didn't know cause I don't use Cruchyroll since they charge." So you mean to tell me that you wrote that plot summary from scratch in your own words, and just by sheer coincidence it appears at Crunchyroll? And the excessively detailed plot summary that you wrote entirely from scratch for Naruto, that appears at Wikia as a matter of coincidence as well? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I did most of Gundam Unicorn summaries months ago before you blocked me, so I don't know how Farix missed those for so long. Sage of the Six Paths (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , when you say "I did most of Gundam Unicorn summaries months ago" 1) are you saying that you wrote the summaries from scratch and that they are in your own words? 2) Please provide the diff showing where and when you originally added this to Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You mean the summaries you added two weeks ago under your sockpuppet account? Every single one of those summaries came from Crunchyroll. You, Sage, are a flat out lair. Why Cyphoidbomb continues to waste his time with you instead of reblocking is beyond me. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I couldn't remember, calm down this was the same thing me and Cyphoidbomb kept arguing about the whole summer. At least were just trying to talk it out. It's just you now trying to start. Almost every account and IP I passed said your starting to get into fights with them. Sage of the Six Paths (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * - Please address my questions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You were caught in a blatant lie. Don't think you can claim innocence, blame me because I was the one who caught you in the lie, and be believed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to escape the lie, I already said I added the summaries for Unicorn, just couldn't remember when. Sage of the Six Paths (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , from where did you get the summaries? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Gundam wikia Sage of the Six Paths (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * - What page, specifically, did you copy from? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The first 14 episodes. Sage of the Six Paths (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Which were copied form other places (at least they attributed copyvios, but copyvios none the less). But also, they do not even have summaries for the two most recent episodes. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What pages at Wikia did you copy from,, please provide links. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Gundam Unicorn RE:0096 episodes 1-14. Sage of the Six Paths (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what was confusing about my request, but I'd appreciate if you'd please post links to the pages you copied. You've already raised serious questions about your competence to edit here, and this going-nowhere conversation is only reinforcing my suspicions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, let's make it super-simple. Please show me a link to the source page you copied when you originally added this content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sage of the Six Paths (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have restored the indefinite block. Even if there is some truth in the things that Sage of the Six Paths in his/her attempts at a defence, there are continuations of the problems which led to the block, and I think it's time to say "enough is enough".  You say "I have no idea why he was believed when he said he was reformed." It was not so much that I believed that he or she was reformed, more that I was willing to give him/her a chance on the off chance that it might pay off, together with the fact that if (as seemed likely) it didn't pay off then the situation would be clearer, and the account could be blocked again with less likelihood of doubt if he or she makes another unblock request. I have occasionally known cases like this where the editor really does reform, and it doesn't cost much to give a test unblock to see if this is one of those occasional cases, knowing that the block can go back within a day or two if it isn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

One more message to the sage. I hope it will be my last one.
The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Scroll.in and The News Minute
What do you think about these website? Do you think they pass WP:RS? I strongly believe they do, given that the former won the "News Start-Up of the Year"’ award and there is no-one questioning its credibility. The latter's editor-in-chief is Chitra Subramaniam (formerly from The Hindu; known for her investigation of the Bofors scandal). Kailash29792 (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt the latter's reliability. Having read some of their articles, I'm sure they are quite inaccurate and POVish. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But you wouldn't declare it a non-RS yet, I suppose? Because I think a source cannot be declared unreliable until exposed. That is why Daredevil villain Wilson Fisk (a hero in the eyes of the people but the mastermind criminal) was not arrested until he was exposed in the season 1 finale. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way Kailash. You've got our policies exactly backwards – the burden of proving the source's reliability lies in you. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock
You may take a look at this investigation. You are also indirectly part of this discussion. Inside the Valley (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Overlinked Muppets
Seems a bunch of Muppet-related articles are still overlinked (e.g.: Animal). I'd fix them but I'm much too busy. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Mohanlal
As per Wikipuffery, it clearly states that such type of words used in main lead section of article Mohanlal are not allowed. So i reverted the edits and made it to neutral point of view. As i am new to wiki so many users are reverting my edits. Need help. I think what i have done is correct. Can you pls check into the matter as the one who reverting my edits clearly states in his bio as a fan of that actor. He is making it as a fan page. Pls help. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambeinghari (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm not surprised. You might want to refrain from doing that until you're more familiar with how the community prefers its content to be presented. You might also solicit some input from the help desk for how to treat this information. For the record, I don't particularly have a problem with noting somewhere in the lead that Mammootty has been given the nickname of "megastar"--I've even said as much on the talk page. I would personally object to the "matinee idol" label. Frankly I see too many fluffy attempts to label Indian subjects with these grandiose descriptions like describing a film as a "blockbuster" or "super hit". "Matinee idol status" has the same purpose, in my opinion. It's meaningless subjective fluff that only serves to promote the subject. If you're not sure what Hammersoft is specifically objecting to, you should ask him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Roseness
SUPPORTING CAST ADDITIONAL CAST ITS THE SANE FREAKING THING MOST PEOPLE PUT ADDITIONAL SO THATS WHY GOSH Roseness 12 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually I don't need help but didn't know what topic name to put anyways GO look at "Shakti Astitva Ke Ehsaas Ki" wiki someone removed the "PLOT" so why won't u go talk to that person and tell them why AND LOOK AM THE LAST ONE WHO EDITED BECAUSE I CHANGED THE NUM OF SEASONS FROM 1 to 01 so DONT THINK THAT AM THE ONE who did IT Roseness 12 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

And changed other things too because PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND but I did not remove the Plot just telling u so u don't go crazy on me and say I did this and I did that! 😒 Roseness 12 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to respond on your talk page, because you are more likely to benefit from this information being in one place. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
P earll's S un TALK 15:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

List of highest grossing Bollywood movies
I point out the matter on talk page about koimoi and boxofficeindia sources. Pls check it out. One user said to use boxoffice india figures instead of koimoi. Can i revet your edits. Your opinion?? Or change only koimoi sources with boxoffice india?? Ambeinghari (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't have a problem if you want to swap out the Koimoi data, but I think you should hold off on the others until other members of WT:ICTF chime in. You're making controversial changes that are likely to rankle other editors so you should open an discussion and seek other input from the community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok am holding off. Where should i open a discussion about it? On WT: ICTF? Can you help Ambeinghari (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you should open the discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films and hopefully it won't get buried by any new Kabali crap. I've posted a note at WT:ICTF, so if you want to paste a link to the discussion in response to my comment there, that'll make it easier for people to respond. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Already opened a discussion on talk page. Thanks for the help and your opinions too needed. And will paste a link to WT:ICTF. Regards Ambeinghari (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the recognition, . Very kind thought! Is it even more star-worthy if I tell you I'm not Indian and don't watch any of the movies? Thanks again! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always thought that was a good way to remain neutral, though it makes research a bit more difficult. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of highest-grossing Tamil films, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Atlee and Ayan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

A bit of drama on a film article
Sorry, more drama. Background: After Articles for deletion/Aimy in a Cage, Aimy in a Cage was. Later, the article's creator requested assistance at the help desk or tea house (I forget; it's been months). I, recommending that it be moved back to mainspace now that it satisfies WP:NFILM. I never watchlisted the article, and I didn't bother to keep track of it afterward. Directly after my edits, an IP editor. The positive review was from Urban Cinephile and was unsourced. You'll note that the URL still goes to starburstmagazine.com.

A few days ago, I came upon this article again and noticed the IP editor's disruptive edits. I, noting that the Urban Cinephile review was both unsourced and likely unreliable. At any rate, it was an unsourced review that was replacing one that was unambiguously reliable – Starburst is a well-respected British magazine. Several days later,, a single-purpose account, came to the article to , replacing it with the unsourced Urban Cinephile review. Note that the URL for the Urban Cinephile review is still the starburstmagazine.com URL. I, becoming increasingly irritable about the situation, and. Vvvyzooo then, though he finally cited the Urban Cinephile review with a URL in the edit summary. Looking at the site, it is as I suspected: some guy's self-published blog. Even if this site is found reliable by consensus, there's still the issue of repeated blanking of a negative review from a respected source. I suspect that this person has an undisclosed financial conflict-of-interest based on, which says, "Your edits are incredibly bias and hurting people." Can you semi-protect Aimy in a Cage for a brief period of time? I don't want to deal the film's producers edit warring with me on this article to remove negative reviews and a RT rating they think is unfair. I've got enough to deal with as-is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - I made some changes to the article. I'm reluctant to semi just yet. I opened a discussion on the talk page, so we'll see if that goes anywhere. Two of those reviews are from what look like blogs, and if I saw them in an Indian film article, I'd send them to the bottom of the sea. However, I do also notice that Rotten Tomatoes includes Filmink (one of the blogs) and Urbancinephile along with...a review on Usenet?! Very, very weird. I feel more scummy about the usenet review than I do about Urbancinephile. While he misspells "appearanaces", the site makes some claim about the owner's background in journalism. I haven't looked further into it, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes includes a lot of self-published reviews. There are many user reviews from the IMDb and Netflix cataloged there.  They're usually buried under the more reliable sources, and they only stick out like this on the more obscure films.  But I'll reply at the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:My Life as a Teenage Robot
Wow, it's like you read my mind, I was just about to set up ClueBot III archiving for the talk page. :P nyuszika7h (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I did read your mind, and you oughta be ashamed about some of the stuff you think! A user posted a response to a 7-year-old discussion there and at Talk:Robotboy, so I thought I'd get rid of the temptations. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Query
Hello C. I hope you are well. Thanks for your edit summary on the LTA page. Whether they are the same person in the LTA page or not is still overlinking (IMO massively} items on numerous articles. They have been warned about it. Do you think they should be reported at AIV? Or somewhere else? I wanted to get your input before proceeding with any reports. I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, if he does it again, let me know and I'll hit 'em up like Tupac. It is getting irritating, I agree. It was always a crapshoot with AIV. Sometimes you get admins who push the "it's not technically vandalism" thing, even if it's indisputably disruptive. And the alternative to sit and wait at ANI is never fun. A good weekend to you as well! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Just got back from running errands and saw that they have continued apace since I posted here. Your thoughts about AIV and ANI are spot on. They might have stopped by the time you get to see this so whatever you feel is best is fine by me. I will be in and out for the rest of the day so I will update you when I get a chance. Thanks for the good wishes :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I gave them a final warning about the cast cruft as well. I'm going to be very nice and consider that a unique disruption from the overlinking, but if that continues again, let me know and the blocks will begin. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Thanks for the update. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, would you...
...consider my request here? FrB.TG (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged with db-copypaste, it seems you copy-pasted the "Videography" one into the "videography" one. Cyphoidbomb or another admin will handle it shortly, I guess. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

About "professional singers cannot sing all or multiple genres"
Hi dear, Even Music directors believes that professional singers cannot sing all or multiple genres, thats why Shekhar Ravjiani also said this thing about Shreya Ghoshal. Read this https://www.quora.com/Can-professional-singers-sing-all-or-multiple-genres And the thing is that you cannot undo my edits with good faith and 100 percent reliable source. Music Lover knows that what is meant by all kinds of songs, means, Shreya Ghoshal has sung all kinds of songs like fast songs called "Chikini Chammeli", "Thumka" etc, romantic song like "Teri Ore" etc, sad song like "Sun Raha Hea Na Tu" etc. Dear you are wrong that professional singers can sing all types of songs. If that was true then why music directors talk many singers for one movie? In a movie there are more than one singer because all singers cannot sing all types of songs. Zafar24  Talk  00:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - - I don't read Quora, nor should I have to read Quora to understand the content that you added. Nor should any other reader. The burden is on you, the person adding the content, to be able to express the information in such a way that a person unfamiliar with the subject will understand it, not just to re-add it with no improvement. Obviously I have a problem with it because it's unclear what you mean. But your solution is to add it back without making any improvements? Why? That's not constructive.


 * Saying "According to the music director Shekhar Ravjiani, Ghoshal can sing all types of songs" doesn't provide us with sufficient context to understand why we're reading that sentence. You might as well say "According to the music director Shekhar Ravjiani, Ghoshal looks good in a hat." It's just a random opinion that is meaningless to the random reader. If what you are trying to say is that the music director praised her for her singing versatility, then you should say that and present his voice as a quotation. Perhaps something to the effect of:
 * Music director Shekhar Ravjiani praised Ghoshal for her singing versatility. He noted in an interview with Times of India, "Some say that if you are trained in a specific genre, then you should sing songs belonging to that only. But I have friends in the industry [like Ghoshal] who sing all types of songs."
 * Do you understand the difference? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear I was saying thing in the wrong way. I was missing out the "versatility thing". But you should not undo things quickly but correct the thing if possible. And by the way, dear, you said, "You might as well say "According to the music director Shekhar Ravjiani, Ghoshal looks good in a hat." That was a GOOD JOKE but not applies on ME. I always take care of Shreya Ghoshal's page and contributes a lot and I always EDITS with sources and references. Zafar24   Talk  00:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * - It's not reasonable to expect me to clean up unclear prose. I have far too much to do here, and I clean up mistakes all day long. A better approach is that the person submitting the content should think about the content being submitted and present it in a way that is academically useful. As for my joke, the point of that is that without any context, the statement doesn't make any sense and sounds random. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafar24 (talk • contribs)

Recent problems with an IP
Hello Cyphoidbomb. Regarding this recent block, I see to have this IP's page on my watchlist, and I'm wondering if you would consider three or six months? It looks like he is restarting the same type of disruption for which he was previously blocked. So it's hard to AGF that he will soon return to normal editing. I would suggest six months, with a willingness to consider credible appeals if he wants to change his approach. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note. I amended my block to 1 month before I saw your note--I forgot which of these people I was dealing with--this person has been a real pain and I suspect them of being . I respect your input, so I'll extend it to 3 months. Regards, and again, thanks for the note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I do see the similarity to User:Roseness 12, with the addition of leading zeros. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a weird case because as I added more and more of these Indian TV articles to my watchlist, I started to notice that a lot of them (particularly the ones with the leading zeroes, the misuse of preceded_by and followed_by, Incorrect use of pseudo-headings instead of L3 headings, were created by a user Arnav19. (This one, for instance). I made contact with him and let him know about the problems and he seemed amenable to fixing them (although I have yet to notice the progress) but I wonder if he didn't inadvertently create an article template that is now being adhered to religiously. On the other hand, maybe he just copied existing problems himself. Might just be a coincidence--I don't have any reason to believe that he is involved in perpetuating the problem, but it was an odd discovery. Since the IP editor hasn't spoken in a coherent way (nor did Roseness), I have no idea what their mental agenda is. Do they actually think 01 is an improvement over 1 or are they just being antagonistic? No idea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi, so you have blocked me for 2 weeks just because I put 01 instead of 1, look I want to tell you something. Before, I used to put 1 but then people kept on editing it and putting 01 so I didn't bothered anymore and thought that we should put 01 instead of 1 so that's why, I put 01 the last time. You have blocked me for this thing without letting me tell you how come I did it! Roseness 12 (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

? Roseness 12 (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't know what's happening with this that u have warned me before but ok I want to tell u that I swear to god that I haven't added a anything related to 1 or 01, the block that u blocked me for 2 weeks I haven't changed anything related to 01 and also I didn't know that the main cast and recurring cast have to be in different levels but it just looks too much anyways for the" former cast", we have to add former cast so people can know that they are no longer acting pls understand me for at least once and stop being so stricted with me pls! Roseness 12 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Whacked Out Media
Just to add, I had observed them way back in March trying to sneak in articles. I got tangled up in other stuff and left it. I believe they are using multiple accounts - more than the ones currently at SPI. I will try listing them soon, maybe at COIN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , ah great, thank you. User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js will be a helpful tool if you plan to chase socks. You'll have to add it to User:Lemongirl942/common.js. It'll make it easier to spot sock patterns in edit histories. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Re:Grammar
Hi Cyphoidbomb. I've read your message. The Start date parameter on the episode table is truly necessary, because it's present in every Wikipedia's list of episodes for every TV live-action or animated series. Luigi1090 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Message
You have a Message at here. Thank you. Wrzzer (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Protection request
Hi Cyphoidbomb,

All of these articles have been subject to financial vandalism for a while. Can you protect all of them for a longer duration if possible.


 * Vaastav: The Reality
 * Sadak
 * Saajan
 * Khalnayak
 * Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.
 * Kaante

Regards. -   Managerarc   ™ talk


 * Hi :
 * Vaastav: The Reality - ✅ - semi, 3 months
 * Sadak - ✅ - semi, 3 months - who on earth has so much free time that they can vandalize a 25 year-old article every few days for months?
 * Saajan - ✅ - semi, 3 months - Odd, noticing that these are mostly UK-based IPs vandalizing these articles, from ISPs: Telefonica, Sky and Tiscali.
 * Khalnayak - ✅ - semi, 3 months
 * Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. - ✅ - semi, 3 months
 * Kaante - ✅ - semi, 3 months
 * Wow. Very, very weird. This kind of thing always makes you wonder. Is this some sort of ethnic beef? Is someone actually paying someone to vandalize these titles? Is this revenge for some sort of sanction that was levied on this person? What on earth possesses these people to do this pointless destructive shit? Oh well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Yes, I have also found it extremely weird. I don't think they are paid, just fans of some particular actor and want their films to have better numbers.-   Managerarc   ™ talk  17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Rustom
I am not cherrypicking reviews. The film has been universally panned by critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridib 626 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Mohenjo Daro
What's so great about someone else's personal analysis? Get a life. Stop sitting around spending all your time on Wikipedia. You have no identity in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridib 626 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

47.136.59.84


Hi Cyphoidbomb,

Just wanted to let you know that this IP has continued their disruptive behavior after your previous block. Further administrative action may need to be taken here... Regards— MeowMoon (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - Blocked 1 week. Thanks for the tip. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brothers (2015 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Lata mangeshkar
Hello. Could you please delete oh jaanewale tujhko Womans day special, as that was a wrong info. She was supposed to sing that but she has not sung that song. She sang Shurodhwani Bengali album in 2014. Mayuresh20 (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's unclear what you are requesting. It looks like you already removed something. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

About Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?
It's my own work (my own written piece) which I have written as a summary of Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? And I had pasted on one website called India forums My username in India Forums is -Dellz - and it's my own work not copyrighted or plagiarized. So please allow me to post my own summary of the serial — Preceding unsigned comment added by DellzCreationz (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello ,am Lazychick.maria from India Forums and my friend Dellz is the holder of it ,it's her summary.Mine it's just the banner I mean the pictures but its her work not my work .Am not the owner of it. Please don't involve me into this .Dellz my friend complained me about this and I was shocked seeing me getting involved when I didn't write anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet.chocolate. (talk • contribs) 08:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A repair in the Garage
Kichappan has released his new version,. Back in Janatha Garage, re-ordering cast in favour of Mohanlal and has added a poster featuring Mohanlal. Not enough evidences for submitting a report. That's why I need your help.--Charles Turing (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - one of his edit summaries says that Mohanlal's name appears first in the film's credits. The film has been released it seems, so this is verifiable. If that's true, that would be a legitimate reason to reorder the cast. What is not legitimate is warring about that nonsense on the speculation that his name would appear first. I'll keep an eye on him though. Thanks for the tip. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Him reordering the cast is not the problem (to me). His behaviour is very much similar to Kichappan. That's a problem. Charles Turing (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , he's been CU confirmed as a sock of Kichappan. Good eye. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your report was convincing. An eagle eye. Made every pieces connect within his limited edits. Good job.--Charles Turing (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , what can I say? I'm very good at it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The 131.156.140.62 overlinker
Given the history and immediate jumping to another IP that has also been blocked for this same editorial and tag-teaming, I extended your block. Geographically close but netblock far, so we can't rangeblock:( DMacks (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the note! I will lose absolutely zero sleep over this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible list
Do a collapsible list should be added in the template or infobox of an album-based article or should be removed? Because I didn't read anything in the Wikipedia guidelines if is appropriate to add a collapsible list in the template. I believe a collapsible list should only be used in the track listings, only if there are bonus tracks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - You haven't told me what article you're referring to so that I can get a better sense of what you're asking. That said, you should check the article's talk page and see what WikiProjects are involved and ask whichever one is the most active, for instance WT:ALBUMS. While there may or may not be anything at MOS:ALBUMS, they may have better information on what community editing norms look like. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to articles like, Rodeo, The Life of Pablo, Views and Jeffery. Articles that are using collapsible lists in the template. Sorry about my bad grammar, if you confused by my question. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - I don't know if you know this, so I'll say it, but I apologize if you're already aware: If you have a question about a template, you often can find an answer by typing the template's name into the search box like "Template:Infobox album". In looking at Template:Infobox album, I don't see anything about the use of collapsible lists, so my guess is that it's not preferred, and collapsing the content is something that someone/some people decided to do because the lists were too long, like at Rodeo. I don't have a lot of experience editing album articles, so I don't know what the community prefers. In situations like this, I myself would go to the WikiProject and ask people who are familiar with album articles what they think, because the community sometimes has expectations that aren't written down. I'll open the discussion at WT:ALBUMS for you, and ping you as well so you can add the page to your watchlist. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I opened the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Hope you get the answers you're looking for. Obviously you should participate in the discussion if you want. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate that. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thippaji Circle
Hello. You have speedy deleted G5 this article, although G5 states "This applies to pages ... that have no substantial edits by others." I am fairly certain that I contributed more than 50% of this article. So can you please undelete it? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The edit summary I saw only mentioned a prod removal, so superficially that didn't strike me as "substantial". Please note that the article was created by a sock of Nagendra NJ, so you are likely to encounter questionable accounts and IPs editing from Tata communications. I'd appreciate if you'd let me know of any suspicious behavior. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and currently it does not meet WP:NFF, which requires establishment that principal photography has commenced. It is at risk of being redirected or AfDd. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks... Regarding WP:NFF, this movie was actually released in theatres last year, on 30 October 2015 precisely. Regards, Biwom (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - Oh! Duh. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

LDMaster1998
Hi Cyphoidbomb, I saw your revert of LDMaster1998's edit on Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!, as I have been following both that page and that user since they've been adding hoax airdates to that particular article and others for a while now. I thought it might help/interest you to know that he has also used/is using IP 108.29.11.192 to make the same vandalistic edit to Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! and is vandalizing other pages using that IP as well. Not sure if that's useful/helpful to you at all, but I thought I should mention it as it appears you've been following this user as well for some time now. Cheers, Katniss   ♥  21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't see too many articles in common. Do you have any diffs that would show similar behavior? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Cyphoidbomb, all of these edits: 1, 2, 3 4 compared to User:LDMaster1998's first edit here: 5 have a pattern of using the same hoax airdate. I've checked online in several places, and can find no source of any episodes airing on those dates. It doesn't seem like a coincidence that the IP and LDMaster use the exact same hoax dates around the exact same time, especially as those dates seem very random, makking it even more unlikely that two "separate" users would put those fake dates on the same page less than a week away from each other. And those are just that article, LDMaster and IP 108 also added the same hoax airdates to other similar articles such as Wabbit (TV series), Bunnicula (TV series) and List of The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) episodes. So it appears to me that either LDMaster and IP 108 are editing in tandem or the more likely possiblity that LDMaster and the IP are the same person. Cheers Katniss   ♥  01:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Cyphoidbomb, sorry to bug you again, but I just wanted to let you know that User:LDMaster1998 has vandalized three articles (Wabbit (TV series), Bunnicula (TV series) and Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!, and re-added the exact same information that you gave him a final warning for (which he has now gotten another warning from a different user). Thanks, sorry again to bother you Katniss   ♥  23:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Blocked 36 hours. I was teetering on indeffing, because I don't think he's here for good sportsmanship, but I'll cross that bridge when/if he continues the disruption again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my eye out on those pages and let you know if he does it again :) Cheers Katniss   ♥  23:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Added new published news as references
Hi Cyphoidbomb, I have added new published sources as references for the "Early Life" section of Priyadarshini Chatterjee which you deleted for having blogs as references. I have added new published sources as references to it. But I am unable to post it in the article as it appears to be blocked. Please revert the blocking so that I can add this to the article....and you can cross check it. CyberBrinda (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please remove the "Page issues" tag from the article Priyadarshini Chatterjee as I have added new published sources as references Thank You!

Sorry please can you tell me to how we can fix template because I'm new to Wikipedia i don't know what to fix and what not
Sorry please can you tell me to how we can fix template because I'm new to Wikipedia i don't know what to fix and what not Parth1243 (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

SPI
Perhaps this is helpful for your recent SPI-request: Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive The Banner talk 20:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ai ai ai! It doesn't end! Do you think that's a better candidate? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Femina Miss India
In these edits you removed a "Shitload" of boldface and italic formatting from the article. Someone have gone overboard with the emphasis and much of what was bolded and italicized should not have been. The only reason you found the page is because I had edited it last time. You should know that there were a "Shitload" of bold face and italics in that same page for many, many years. But you never knew about it, when I edited something, you found the faults.

Removed my work
You removed some sentences in the page Priyadarshini Chatterjee as you mentioned I have used blogs as references. Instead of removing the whole lot. You could have added "citation needed" to some sentences. But you deleted the entire paragraph. CyberBrinda Parth1243 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's my previous account please unblock I will follow the rules of Wikipedia and fix templates please unblock it widr has blocked IT
Yes it's my previous account please unblock I will follow the rules of Wikipedia and fix templates please unblock it widr has blocked IT Parth1243 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Unblock me
Why you blocked me 103.57.214.105 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained it in detail here. You violated policy by creating another account to evade a block. I had to block you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Finding Dory page
Hello there. We all know that Finding Dory is a sequel to Finding Nemo because the events of the film take place after those of the latter. It seems possible that Finding Dory is also a spin-off of Finding Nemo because it centers on Dory who is not the main character of the first film. What do you think? 63.173.125.137 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the larger question that you're asking, so I can't really respond in a helpful way. Is there a dispute about whether Finding Dory is a spin-off of Finding Nemo? What do the references say? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a dispute. The ones who say it's also a spin-off gave sufficient sources but those who disagree are demanding a so-called consensus. 63.173.125.137 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And where is the dispute taking place? Have there been any discussions about this on article talk pages? I'm not sure exactly how I can help. I don't know anything about the films. Seems like something a good-old-fashioned civil discussion between the various parties would help to resolve. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Spin-off is a TV term, not a film term. Why would anyone describe Finding Dory as a spin-off of Finding Nemo?  --Drmargi (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's a very good point, actually. "Spin-off" is a term used primarily in TV. "Sequel" would be more fitting for a film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at Minions, it's described in the head as both a prequel and spin-off to the Despicable Me franchise. 23.241.110.84 (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That very well may be, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Drmargi is right about spin-off being a TV term. However, people these days are using the term in films, video games, or any kind of narrative. A spin-off is usually a story that focuses on a character who was just another character in the previous story. In the case of Finding Nemo and Finding Dory, Dory replaces Nemo as the protagonist. 173.196.203.178 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, it doesn't matter what random people are calling the thing. If reputable academic sources have begun to refer to these titles as spin-offs, then you might have a stronger argument, but for all we know, the term is being widely misused by bloggers, kids, and other non-notables. Anyhow, a better place for this discussion would be at the talk page for the article in question, so that other interested editors could participate. Or, perhaps at WikiProject Film so that people familiar with film article quality can weigh in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a very common phenomenon among entertainment articles that editors who only understand terms in context mis-apply them. (Don't get me started on what they do with also starring.) You might be able to make an argument for the Minions example, but that doesn't mean every film that features a character from another is a spin-off. It's a TV term. The media surrounding Finding Dory consistently referred to it as a sequel. If there's no reliable source that Andrew Stanton, the production company and the studio see it as a spin-off, the term is mis-applied. --Drmargi (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh how many times I've had to educate people that starring ≠ appearing in... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure spin-off is just a TV term? Please check this source. With regards to the media, there are a number of columns that consider Finding Dory as a spin-off. 47.152.93.124 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil
Not sure if it tingled your spidey senses but 5 minutes after Widr blocked the IP, Sarveshjoshi42 made the same edits, so it looks like block evasion. I notice that Sarveshjoshi42 has edited other articles in the same address pool as the IP. I've also mentioned this on Widr's talk page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's probably the same dude. I'll yield to on this, though. My guess is that the guy will wind up getting blocked anyway if he continues that stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

List of The 100 episodes
When you're bored, have a look at the recent edits to List of The 100 episodes. I'm assuming it's the same editor, and he/she has made 78 edits to the article in less than 24 hours. So many edits, so little information. My watchlist went crazy. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Same editor as whom? the Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil guy? As for your watchlist, do you have the "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" turned on in Preferneces > Recent changes? That made a significant difference to my watchlist management. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. There are two IPs who have made bulk edits but have really achieved nothing. Nothing to do with Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil, but just something that makes you wonder. I might have to try changing my prefs as you've sugggested. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It'll really cut down on time, since you'll be able to spot which article has changed, then check the history to pick the diffs you want to compare. It used to drive me batshit to check diff by diff from the bottom of the watchlist up. Stuff would constantly fall off my watchlist. I dunno about you, but I've got over 10k pages watchlisted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked script phrasing
Do you know if it's possible to change the phrasing of the tooltip, specifically after the contributions link? It's a bit confusing for me—like, I know and can figure it out eventually, but yeah, it's still a bit confusing. So instead of what's shown in the screenshot here, something like, "...blocked for 30 days by Widr - 3 minutes ago." It's mostly the "0:00 ago" that throws me off; everything else doesn't, really, I just think it looks better spelled out. Thanks in advance! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea. Frankly, I never use it! You could monkey with your preferences, or you could try VPT. Sorry! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Cyphoidbomb, I need some help. I'm dealing with a user who is inserting content that is WP:UNSOURCED (see Lester Holt and Martha Raddatz). I've tried explaining multiple times, along with another user, that it must be cited. He is inserting the Holt is a Democrat, but according to the records (which he stated is where he's received his information), which also had to be pointed out by UCO2009bluejay in this edit, Holt is a Republican. Right now it isn't as to whether it is verifiable or not, it's a matter of whether or not Holt's a Democrat, which obviously he isn't (as shown in the link that has been provided to him). I know I've violated the 3RR, and I am done with editing for at least a day on the article, but after several attempts of trying to tell the other user that the content needed a reliable source in the article, he's still refusing to do so. Maybe you can get it through to their head or do something else; I don't know, but this is getting tiring. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 19:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've dropped him a note. I'm sure you're aware that when you edit war, you run the risk of being sanctioned yourself. I don't want to do that, so please cool it. Also, I've opened up a discussion at WikiProject Politics. I'm not sure we can use voter registration records to assert party affiliation, so I need clarification on that. You might want to keep an eye on any responses. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that, which is why I've stopped and asked you to look into it. I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks for the reply! Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 20:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Martha Raddatz
This issue appears to be about what constitutes a sufficient reference. Please consider this example to see my reasoning: If a page was about global warming, and I submitted content pointing out that "...according to public records which are kept by NOAA, the average ocean temperature went up by 1 degree in 2015." In that submission, the reference source is shown, and since it is public record it can be verified, and the source is on the page as an in-line attribution.

It appears from your talk message to me that if any user challenged that reference, even without first bothering to confirm it on his own, then a link to the specific NOAA document in which that statement can be seen must be included--or the statement must be deleted.

Wouldn't such a rule easily be abused by a user who could then go through any page in Wikipedia and challenge every statement appearing without a link? All any user would have to do to bring Wikipedia to a grinding halt, is to challenge every statement on any page--even including those with stated references that can be verified--without ever even having to do some research to confirm them on his own.

Looking at the Lester Holt and Martha Raddatz pages for example, this user who is engaging in a editing war with me could just as easily challenge all of the many, many statements in those pages that appear without a link or even a reference. The effect would be to shut down those pages or at least gut them by removing most of the information in them. Honestmedia (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By extension of your argument, we don't need references in articles, because we have libraries, and anyone should be allowed to enter whatever they want on the basis that anyone who objects can go to a library and look up the information themselves to verify it. That ain't how Wikipedia or other academic references work. Controversial content should be supported by a reliable source and that burden falls on the person submitting the information. The strength of Wikipedia is entirely in its references. No references = weak. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

plz tell me how can I add the naagin season 2 story plot properly
plz tell me how can I add the naagin season 2 story plot properly thanks Kasamterepyar ki (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - Season 2 hasn't aired. How could you add a plot for something that hasn't aired? Once it airs, however, it should not exceed 500 words, and it should focus on the overall season, not on episode-by-episode details. See WP:TVPLOT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ok but then tell me how to add it Naagin Season 2 date is now confirmed 8th October it airs on Colors TV promo has also come out for it every Saturday-Sunday 8: 00 pm to 9:00pm.Thanks

Kasamterepyar ki (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Find reliable sources that indicate this, then post a request with those sources on the article's talk page. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General  ‖ 18:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * and also tell how can I add image in naagin season 2 page because it's new promo has come Kasamterepyar ki (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) You don't need to add a new section every time you post a question. If you're starting a new discussion entirely, then add a new section. I've fixed this for you. 2) If I were you, I'd avoid dealing with image uploads. You'd have to first familiarize yourself with our image use policy, or you'd run the risk of uploading copyrighted content incorrectly. Uploading images isn't even something that I'm comfortable doing myself. There's also no real reason to add an image for a promo. We're not here to promote the show. And, I happen to think the article was created prematurely and should be merged back into the main article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As predicted, more sockpuppetry from Vicky12333. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Reordering it in alphabetical order
And change in "Ek That Tiger" was a typing error.

Hemant DabralTalk  00:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not about ethnic war or anything else. It's what the factual referrece says in the cited website. I just added the figure shown on the weblink.

Hemant DabralTalk  00:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm not editing it anymore. I don't want any troubles. I'll edit only if I see grammatical errors. Just minor edits. I don't want to start edit wars.

Hemant DabralTalk  02:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Darth Vader
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Lester Holt
OK, now we have multiple WP:RSs to support the fact that Trump claimed Lester Holt is a Democrat and news media report that he is a registered Republican. But one editor still reverted it, apparently based on reasons that don't comply with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and I don't want to get into an edit war. Could you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lester_Holt&type=revision&diff=741050538&oldid=741050489 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lester_Holt#Which_side_is_he_on.3F_Who_cares. and tell us in the Talk page what Wikipedia policy says we should do? --Nbauman (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: LDMaster1998
Hi Cyphoidbomb, I just wanted to bring to your attention that LDMaster1998 is doing the exact same thing again that you blocked him for a few weeks ago. Would suggest maybe an indef, since he seems to have learned absolutely nothing from his block? Cheers, Katniss   ♥  14:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeffing is a touch premature, methinks. I've blocked him for 2 weeks with the hope that he'll start communicating. If the disruption resumes after the block expires, then I'll indef him. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Spam
Hi, can you please check out this editor User:Zainlatif12 as they have been removing genuine references and replacing them with spam links to an irrevelant song lyrics site, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Indeffed him for being a spam-only account. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also opened a request to have the two sites he was spamming added to the blacklist. I encountered one of his other accounts in July. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it was certainly a spammer Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
P earll's S un TALK 20:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Duvvada Jagannadham
NIKE 01 is vandalising Allu Arjun 's films. He deleted many sources for Sarrainodu in the past. He is doing the same for Duvvada Jagannadham.PhysicsScientist (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the recent films have the casting news these days. Ask him why is the user not deleting them for example Sardaar Gabbar Singh and Brahmotsavam. Shruti Haasan and Kajal Aggarwal were approached but rejected the film as they were busy doing another projects. The user is vandalising Allu Arjun's films leaving no stone unturned.PhysicsScientist (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion on this edit?PhysicsScientist (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a huge problem with it. Do we really need to know that it's a person's 17th film? That's not something we typically indicate in a film article. And do we really need four references for a piece of uncontroversial information like a film's release date? I think he should have used an edit summary to explain the changes, but it's not like he committed vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay.PhysicsScientist (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Small poke
Just want you to know that a few small changes will be implement to MOS:TV, based on the most recent rewrite discussion, in case you would like to voice any opinions regarding them before they are implemented. Once those are done, the next section to cover will be the first "Image" section, with the first "Lead" section and everyone's favorite topic, "Plot", on deck. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a question
Hey, Cyphoidbomb, have you ever considered being a bareucrat? Foxnpichu (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Don't know that it's something I'd be interested in. How's everything going with you? Everything going smoothly? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. I'm in University now. How are things going with you? Foxnpichu (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's awesome! The best times of your life are ahead, both in terms of fun and being challenged intellectually. You may be surprised at how your opinions change over the next few years. Maybe they won't, but maybe they will... My best wishes to you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is way better than school. In case you were wondering, I absolutely hated school. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

B. A. M.
Hi Cyphoidbomb! I can you block this article from other users (including me) to move the article without permission at WP:RM/TR, and only allowed administrators to move the page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On what basis? What's the story here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, an editor named Rich Farmbrough moved the page from B.A.M. to B. A. M. for standard spacing. And user Xboxmanwar (who got a history of getting in a edit war with other users) moved the page back to B.A.M. without ask permission at WP:RM/TR. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, where in WP:RM/TR does it say about that article, second of all, I don't need permission because I already did the move, but you reverted it, and third of all, I don't see an issue here with the stage name he has with the formatting on here, there isn't any technical issues with it or any other issues, just B.A.M. No need for spacing of you can just write it out like that. Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, so why not just BAM if you're going to the super-simple route, ? That's a rhetorical question--It would not be appropriate. We don't name articles based on what you personally find simpler. Our Manual of Style prefers spaces in abbreviations. There are ample rules at Article titles, and most of them point back to the various Manual of Styles. American poet ee cummings went by that stylization in his works, but we still have a proper article on E. E. Cummings, not E.E. Cummings or EE Cummings or... If a far more experienced editor such as makes a bold change like that, maybe you should ask him to edify you instead of changing it back as if you somehow know better than someone with 1.1 million edits under his belt? What?! 1.1 million?! Wow! Now granted, I'm sure you didn't know how many edits he had under his belt, but when you take the risk of reverting or repeating a previous edit, you either need to discuss, or you need to do your research. I think it's safe to say that Mr. Farmbrough has a familiarity with how articles should be titled, and If he has any specific input (article titles aren't really my speciality), I think we can quickly resolve this, unless you have some sort of policy-driven reason to title the article the way you did, Xboxmanwar. Thoughts?  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So according to the Wikipedia's guidelines, it's prefer spaces in abbreviations. That's make sense and I agreed with this, but the problem I have with Xboxmanwar that he makes some edits based on his opinion. I believe that the article's title should be changed back to what Rich Farmbrough have left it, which I already did changed it back hours ago. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb, I can't speak for Xboxmanwar, but I did my research, and he is always credited as "B.A.M." with no spaces. This is why I moved it back and asked for page protection due to people like Rich Farmbrough moving it without, I'm assuming, knowing how the producer is actually credited (his edit summary of "standard spacing" is a bit of a stretch, considering it is not standard due to the below examples). The suggestion that no editor should ever question an editor with 1.1 million or so edits, as if because of this they are authorities in and of themselves or must inherently know all how things should be titled due to their experience, has little to no basis in this discussion. (I've come into contact with Koavf before, and I don't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure even he wouldn't claim to know everything despite being Wikipedia's highest-ranked editor for quite a few years.) Besides, what do we go off here? I could find just as many examples for and against. E. E. Cummings? J. K. Rowling? J. R. R. Tolkien? Sure. What about B.B. King? M.I.A. (rapper)? S.H.I.E.L.D.? I'd say how they are credited is the defining word in this, since there are differing styles on how to space similarly-titled articles, whether they be stylisations, abbreviations or proper acronyms or not. So since I can't find any main sources spacing the producer's professional name out, this is why I moved it back to its original title and asked for move protection. I'm sorry for restarting this since, as you said, article titles are not your area, but I just wanted to bring this up.  Ss 112  12:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit: I've actually just looked back to see that TheAmazingPeanuts originally moved the page from Brandon "B.A.M" Hodge to B.A.M. with no spaces. Then Rich Farmbrough moved it later, which Xboxmanwar undid. I think this first move was correct, as sources I found support a full stop after the M. At least, it should be left as is now, as the credits are either B.A.M. or Brandon "B.A.M." Hodge, and to avoid further move disputes.  Ss 112  12:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've have completely forgotten about that edit I made, well my bad. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your input is much appreciated. Article titles aren't my speciality. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:GabbyComitorocksiteverytime
Could you also tag this (already blocked) account once you get the chance? I'm assuming the master is obvious by now... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:28AA:8490:C872:4D54 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

LoE in Philippine TV
It's a different thing here on Philippine TV. We don't usually have that 'season' thing. So we group episodes by months or by book number. Just like the other LoE articles of Philippine TV. You can just go here to find out the difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Philippine_television_series_episodes. Philippine TV has its own format of LoE and does not follow US style. Hope it's clear! Thanks! Leo kingston (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I moved the same discussion on my talk to WPTV:Talk. —  Wylie pedia  05:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering how most television series in the RP are closely modeled after their Latin American telenovela counterparts, seasons are for the most part relegated to either foreign canned series or reality shows. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , might I trouble you to please weigh in with your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television? That was where I was hoping Leo would respond when I posted the giant talkback template on his talk page.  The wider the audience for these issues, the better, I think. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock
Looks like the user, Viper18184, you blocked for vandalism has created another account, Randyortan12 .--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks ! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)