User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 18

The Chinese IP hopper
Here we go again. You may recall about a year ago, we had issues with a Chinese IP hopper adding irrelevant information to several British TV series, notably Endeavour (TV series). You finally were able to shut him down by protecting the page for a month or so. Well, he's back, edit warring and IP hopping over a redundant statement, with no consensus building. I've compared edit summaries and IPs with his earlier activity, and they align well enough that I'm satisfied that we've got the same person. Would you be willing to semi-protect the article and cut him off? He's been reverted by three editors, at least, and shows no inclination to stop. --Drmargi (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - ✅ - Please let me know if it persists. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully that's long enough for him to get bored.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there's some Ishq in the hawa....
User:Dil Se Di Dua

I'm not overly familiar with this farm, I think I blocked a couple of socks earlier but this is your area of expertise. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My area of expertise? I don't think I'm familiar with Ishq at all based on Sockpuppet investigations/Ishq Hawa Mein/Archive.,  aka  do any of you think that there's anything behaviorally about  that would tie them to Ishq Hawa Mein? I see some juicy intersections, like at Deepika Padukone and Jiah Khan and Katrina Kaif, but I'm not familiar with their specific behavior. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a vague memory of blocking a couple of these Ishq socks per a request by on 's talk page, but that's about all I know of this one and I can't seem to find those on Ponyo's or my talk archives! The behavior certainly matches Gee Aap Kaun that I'd asked Managerarc to wait for Ponyo to check on.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My involvement was requesting Ponyo to block a couple of socks of the farm. Will be checking and posting in a while. Prelim. the names are similar to the wide variety of names taken by the various socks!  Winged Blades Godric 06:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How's about and .Monstrous editing overlap,same span of time.All seem obsessed about Karisma Kapoor.Also, the particular page has subject to rampant activity by the puppets of the same farm.Well, the chances are_____  Winged Blades Godric 06:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On similarities between and the lone(??) blocked puppet of the farm who edited Deepika Padukone in the recent past,I don't see any intersection.  Winged Blades Godric 06:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Same with Jiah Khan. Winged Blades Godric 06:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The account has made same edits as that of on Katrina Kaif.The page has been a favourite hunting ground for the farm!  Winged Blades Godric 07:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The account has made near same edits on Alia Bhatt as that of (another long-blocked puppet). Winged Blades Godric 07:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging He/she was heavily involved with blocking most of the puppeteers of the sock-farm.  Winged Blades Godric 11:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Further overlap of edits of on Parineeti Chopra, another page heavily edited upon by the banned puppets of the farm. Winged Blades Godric 11:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * --How's about opening a SPA?Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 17:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wabbit
The LA means Latin America. 209.66.170.98 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thank you, but that's not a common abbreviation that the average person would understand without sufficient context and the content is also unsourced. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

why?
@Gulshadsaif: Why does this article focus on nett gross when no other film financial article at Wikipedia focuses on nett gross? Why not domestic gross, which would be the obvious choice for an article labeled "collection". Also, why is Domestic capitalised? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

ANSWERED BECAUSE SINCE 1940 TO TILL NOW MANY MOVIES ARE PERMORMED ONLY IN DOMESTIC IN INDIAN CINEMA SO THATS WHY THIS LIST(List of highest-Domestic collection of Indian films) SHOW ALL TIME FILMS EQUAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulshadsaif (talk • contribs) 09:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

As Douglas A. would say
You were certainly right about this C. When changing "universally positive" in articles I have left edit summaries stating that "the reviews from Andromeda were mixed and critics at the Horse head Nebula hated it." I hope this brings a grin to your day/night. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh! Clever,, and spot-on. In the Indian film articles I patrol, the equivalent poison is "The film was declared as blockbuster" or "The film was declared as flop" or "The film was declared as superhit" or, take your pick... Even when sources use hyperbole, it's our duty to report that neutrally, and I think we do, largely, since we never declare a film's reception as "rotten" simply because RT has their cute tomato splatter metric... (And yes, I've enjoyed Mr. Adams' books over the years.) Regards as always, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh my those are incredible. Thanks for taking the time to link em so I could read em :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought you might get a kick out of this. I've been having trouble with Indian television articles for months. Something I've been calling the "Campaign of Ignorance. One thing that keeps springing up at some of them, are interpretive labels like "antagonist" and that sort of thing. This edit marks the latest in a series of edits where the parenthetical label expanded to "Former Parallel Main Female Lead". Like, first of all, pretty sure we can distinguish between females and males without being told, then this cast member is acting in a lead role, but I guess not quite, since they are a parallel lead, but of the parallel leads, they're one of the main parallel leads. I'm trying to figure out the hierarchy in these editors minds.
 * Lead
 * Main parallel lead (Must be higher up than just a regular parallel lead.)
 * Parallel lead (isn't that just another lead? Why do they get a special, but lesser label?)
 * Lesser parallel lead (I made this one up, but it seems you'd have to have something below parallel lead, no?)
 * I just don't know what to do... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration C. Your CoI page explains the situation well. Those editors don't seem to get that this is the "English Language" WikiP :-( The "parallel leads" brings up a thought - parallel lines never touch. Does that mean those characters never touch throughout the film? -HeeHee. Have a pleasant weekend in spite of this aggravation and cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh. Good point! A good weekend to you as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Question on IP Hopper
Hi Cyphoidbomb, So first of all, I'm really sorry to bug you on an issue you don't really have involvement on, but as you are an admin and we've crossed paths a few times I thought you may be able to assist in this somewhat abnormal situation. For over two years now, an IP hopper which always uses the same IP range 2602:306:37eb:47e0 (with slightly different IP endings to avoid detection, I'm guessing it's some sort of open proxy) has been disruptive on various The Simpsons-related articles which I regularly watch, and as the disruption is only getting worse as of lately, I've compiled a list which includes over 110 instances of this vandal disrupting the articles by using this IP range. As I doubt WP:AIV or WP:SPI would be a good place to report this, I'm admittedly a bit unsure as to where would be best to report this IP range for a proposed range block. Thank you so much in advance for whatever help you can provide here! Katniss  May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  18:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, two ways to go, you can either post a request at WP:AN, or you can directly approach an admin from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks. KrakatoaKatie is awesome--befriend her! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the help, much appreciated! I'll take your advice and talk to KrakatoaKatie then! Cheers and thanks as always!  Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  21:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
GABgab 23:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:RoseGirlXS
Why hello again there Cyphoidbomb, it's been a while lol. Ironically, I just ran into another problem user which this time you have a large history of involvement with. It appears User:RoseGirlXS who you blocked several times for adding contractions, is back again adding more contractions despite my somewhat heartfelt warning basically saying if she wanted to prove she was truly a good editor, constructive editor she needed to cut the contraction crap. Recently (well somewhat recently, tbh I watchlisted her and then forgot about her for a while until seeing her name pop-up again today lol), two of her edits purposefully added contractions to articles, proving to me she is WP:NOTHERE. Cheers Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  21:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's really frustrating. I also don't see how the wordier version of the Seinfeld summary was better. Because it crammed even more words into the paragraph? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know either. It appears to me she either doesn't know how to edit Wikipedia correctly or she simply is trying to be disruptive. Based on her lack of response and continual ignoring of all the warnings people have given her on her talk page, I'd say unfortunately it's probably the latter. Suggestions on what we should do at this point for her? I hate even suggesting another ban but it seems like her obstinance to anyone's suggestions leaves us either that or continual frustration of having to constantly clean up her very poor edits.  Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  17:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Cyphoidbomb, sorry to not give you a chance to respond to my previous message, but I thought it might interest you to know that I just looked through her edits and found an overwhelming amount of additions after you last blocked her in April where she purposefully added contractions 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41, introduced unnecessary and sloppy parenthicals into articles 42 43 [44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55, and in many cases, both 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Cheers, Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  23:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - Dear god! That's a lot of work for you to do. I don't envy that, but your effort is appreciated. I've indeffed the user because this has to stop. The 9 to 5 changes were really ridiculous. She's clearly gone out of her way to add contractions. Wow. I'm going to paste your list on her talk page so that any reviewing admin will see the evidence, and so all your hard work isn't in vain. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, always happy to help when I can!  Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You've got some huevos, let me tell you. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of this post, but if you're notifying me that you plan to bring the Bullfighting issue up at ANI, you'd probably best be served by opening the discussion on the Bullfighting talk page rather than wasting time at the drama board and risking getting blocked for edit-warring. Your call though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I couldn't care less about being blocked, but I'm not going to waste my time. Let me just say that this is the most egregious mocking of WP:INVOLVED and the most flagrant flaunting of administrative infallibility I have seen in ages. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, are you claiming CB is involved due to editing the article extensively before protecting? -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 10:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through the article's recent history and agree with CB's protection of the article - I understand it must be frustrating to see the current version protected, so if you make an edit request on the article's talk page I'll have a look for you. Is there anything else I can do to help? -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 10:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Joe, I have no opinions on the content in dispute, so I don't consider myself involved in that matter, and I believe any other administrator would have wound up protecting the article to stimulate discussion between the two editors who both inflexibly refused to discuss. Either the article would have been protected or accounts would have been blocked. And to your query, Samtar, my edits at Bullfighting began as damage control at Jallikattu. I have no interest in the subject of bullfighting. Anyhow, I'm happy to recuse myself from adminning at bullfighting if you care to intercede. Regards,Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, unless you mean: "I have no opinions, other than 'my version is the right one". Joefromrandb (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I meant what I said I meant. But I appreciate the confidence you have in your mind-reading skills. The current version is a middle ground between both of your edits and I take no position on whether or not it's "preferable" or "correct". You articulated an objection to the unsupported analysis that bullfighting is not considered a sport because it lacks a competitive element. That content isn't in the article presently. The other user seemed to address any lingering OR/sourcing issue by adding a reference in support of the assertion that bullfighting isn't considered a sport in the region. (There was already a reference for this claim BTW.) Your re-removal of this content wasn't properly explained or discussed, which is why that was removed and the current version seems like a reasonable temporary compromise to partially satisfy two editors who were refusing to talk. Now it very well may be the case that the reference added doesn't support the claim to your satisfaction, but that's for you and the other editor to discuss. And to your concern here, while in hindsight I can absolutely understand why you'd interpret my comments as a threat to block you, that wasn't my intention, I was apprising you of the WP:BOOMERANG effect that could wind up working against you if you went to ANI with dirty hands. I should have been more clear about that and I should have linked to the essay, so I apologize for that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Wiki 0007
Hi Admin! How are you? Warned this user for their continuous unexplained changing of Mahira Khan's birthday, but they didn't respond and again made same vandalism. Requesting for your action on the user, Thanks :) M. Billoo 17:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi M.Billoo, I'm fine, thank you. And you? I've issued a final warning about the Mahira Khan issue, and it looks like they might also be edit warring about the other stuff. If they continue, please let me know. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, Thanks! M. Billoo 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Admin! The user again made same edits. M. Billoo 15:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Admin! Please see User talk:Wiki 0007, the user has removed warning messages from talk page and is repeatedly changing birth year of Mahira Khan. M. Billoo 16:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The user is allowed to remove warnings from his page, but I have blocked him indefinitely for his persistent use of a bad reference to support Mahira Khan's birthdate. Re: this, in my experience it's not terribly useful to shout at disruptive users "Ready for another 'block'!!". I know it feels good, because they're being disruptive and you're hoping they get their medicine, but trolls feed on negative energy. If they know they're getting under your skin, then they feel like they have the power in the situation. Also, blocks aren't supposed to be punishments, they're tools we use to prevent disruption to the project. I wish the people I block were more in control of their behavior. It's kinda sad, really. Anyway, just a thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me! M. Billoo 17:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Malayalasangeetham.info
Hi, could you please comment here, and the section below it? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - ✅ - Sorry for the delay, I've been swamped. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Swaragini
Thanks for your message.I agree with your essay, the most annoying thing for me is when something wrong is corrected and then gets quickly reverted.Regarding infoboxes entry for producers/writers should replaced producers/writers still remain or just the new ones? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the TV community typically prefers that the article not just reflect the most current information, but provides historical information as well. So I'd probably say that unless the lists get too long, (note that Template:Infobox television doesn't like more than 5 writers in the infobox) it should be a record of the various producers/writers who worked on the series. In a case where the infobox is getting bloated, it might make more sense to move some of the information to the production section or something. But it would be difficult I'm sure to find reliable information on when producers came aboard and why they other ones may have left. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Request
Pretty pleeeeaase let me have another chance! Please?
 * I promise I won't be a vandal.
 * 72.68.8.128 (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I don't believe you possess the necessary skills to edit here constructively. This ranges from grammar to the ability to discuss things constructively, to a general sense of respect for community policy, what with your years of sockpuppetry and all. At this point, (and by the way, this has been stated to you at various of your sockpuppets' talk pages) the only option available to you is the standard offer, which would require you to stop editing at Wikipedia entirely for six months, and then open an unblock request at your first account. You would need to convince a reviewing administrator that you understand what you have previously been blocked for, as well as what problems you've created over the years, and you would need to provide some sort of compelling plan for how you'd avoid the problems in the future. I don't know how the grammar issues will be resolved, but that's for you to figure out over the span of 6 months. Also, there are zero guarantees that an admin will agree to unblock you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppeteer
You may find it interesting to read this edit and this one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Intriguing. Thanks for your work on this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb, : if you guys are interested, I found Josephlalrinhlua786's latest IP range: 101.63.0.0/16. It's not too busy, so it's alright to scan through the entire /16.  His latest targets appear to be Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), Dunkirk (2017 film), Journey to the West: The Demons Strike Back, and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Edits such as this by one of the IP addresses and this by Josephlalrinhlua786 make for interesting comparison. Also, the IP range is from the same ISP and the same organisation as previous IP addresses believed to have been used by Josephlalrinhlua786. Almost all of the most recent edits from the range are evidently from Josephlalrinhlua786, but going back a bit earlier there are many edits that don't have any obvious connection to him, which makes a long range block unacceptable. I have blocked the range for two weeks, and I shall look at the history of the articles you mention, to see whether semi-protecting them seems a good idea. Unfortunately, he will probably just move to other articles, but at least we can do what we can to make it a little more difficult for him. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Rehnuma
Also, you need to change the title of the page as well, once again, this film is not called "The Ring", it is called "Rehnuma", and you can search this up to, please make this change so that the Wiki audience can see the real name and realize that "Rehnuma" is the name of this film. Ahsanimtiaz53 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As indicated on your talk page, you need to open a discussion to Talk:The Ring (2017 film) and bring references that confirm the change, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Chinese IP hopper, again.
Hey, Cyphoid. Our IP Chinese IP hopper is back; he waited for the semi at Endeavour (TV series) to expire and went right back to the same disruptive editing. He's been clear he considers reverts of his edits vandalism, and will not discuss, or respect the MOS. I'm not sure what the next best move is; he hops IPs so fast that I can't see AN3 doing any good. The most recent series of episodes has ended, and there doesn't seem to be any other IP activity or requests for edits. Perhaps a good long semi is what's needed. --Drmargi (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article for 2 months to stimulate discussion. If the discussion takes place and consensus is reached, it can be unprotected. I think it might be wise to open a good faith discussion on the talk page yourself, just so it's clear to any other admin that you did attempt to discuss this. I know that you probably contacted one of the IPs directly, but seeing a discussion centralized might be helpful. Also, dropping the stick might also be worth considering as well. Though unsatisfying, I've found that sometimes this is the best way to move past this sort of crap. A one-line season/episode summary seems a bit much to defend to the death, and it's possible that a sense of winning may encourage the other editor to change their behavior. Just a thought. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about both those things this morning, to be honest. I'll start the discussion, definitely.  Given his history, I'm reluctant to drop the stick just yet, but it may be the only way forward.  I'm not the only one reverting his edits, which is a factor.  Thanks!  --Drmargi (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That another editor(s) is reverting as well, is significant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hopefully a longer breather is all it will take. Fingers crossed.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Page protection
I see you discovered it was the wrong template. Your revision [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Bear_in_the_Big_Blue_House_episodes&oldid=764570363] has the hidden Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Maybe you just didn't examine the categories but if you haven't enabled "Show hidden categories" at Special:Preferences then I strongly recommend it for all active editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for the note, I saw that NeilN fixed the issue, and that's what tipped me off. :) I'll take your advice about the Show hidden categories. Hopefully it'll improve my life. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Jolly LLB 2 Genre dispute
I had thanked you personally for the edit on Jolly LLB 2 genre in lede. Foremost, have a small look on the lede of this page, doesn't it looked as the "genre salad?" It is ok that you had corrected the genre but needed a small review on this. Thanks. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I got your thanks, thanks. Re: Birdman, it looks like it was changed here without explanation or source. This particular phrasing of "satirical black comedy-drama" is truly bizarre. "Comedy-drama" makes sense, and "black comedy" makes sense, each on their own, but mashing them together makes it sound like we're talking about a black (as in the ethnicity) comedy-drama rather than a black comedy. I can't think of a parallel--so I'll make one up: If we described someone as a "hot dog-man", do we mean he's a man shaped like a hot dog, or do we mean he's a sexy dog-man? Anyway, this section of the lead typically should be based on what the majority of sources identify its genre as, so if the majority of sources are calling it a "comedy" or a "black comedy" or whatever, then that's what we should go with, but I'm skeptical anyone's describing it as a "satirical black comedy-drama". Also, it's very weird that the same phrasing showed up at Jolly LLB 2. It's a conspiracy! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a conspiracy mate, just a doubt as this page may be in vandalism phase by unknown editors so i have a request that Jolly LLB 2 must be in strict supervision with respect to genre, box-office collections, reviews etc as the film is released fresh. I will keep that page corrected and up to date so make sure no "extra detailing unneccesarily will be done in it. Thank you once again. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was joking about the conspiracy. Also, I didn't know that you had originally added it, so I apologise if my commentary above came off a little critical. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI
Re: asanas, as discussed on my talk. It's up. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi.  16:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for doing the dirty work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a dirty job... :D np. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Mahira Khan
Hi Admin! Special:Diff/765438077 and Special:Diff/749056751, any resemblence? Thanks! M. Billoo 14:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Thanks for noticing that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
GABgab 01:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reporting an editor who will not mend his ways
Hi Cyphoidbomb. I see you are familiar with Nelatti's work, and you have had a number of interactions with him. There seems to be no way to get through to him. Anything you can do? I don't want to spend too much time on this by going through the channels, when I know that admins do have a fair amount of latitude and enjoy a degree of discretionary powers (and thank god for that, or otherwise the clogging and ensuing backlog would be unspeakable). Thanks, regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - Blocked 72 hours. This is one of those cases where I feel either the user is not competent, or they are trolling. The repeated inability to understand that they can't add original research to articles is problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . Thanks. I will send him a message about the tutoring/adoption programme. Who know, we might be able to gain a new dedicated editor. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI
You may comment on this SPI case and may take a look at here. Bests, 46.221.172.216 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I may? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Server delay
I saw you reverted your post when it was fixed but you may want an explanation. When a template is edited it often takes time (sometimes days and I have seen months but that may have been a bug) before pages using the template are automatically updated. You can force an immediate update of a specific page by purging it at Wikipedia. It's not enough to reload it in your own browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the explanation. Wow, that's weird that it takes so long. Seems like spammers could take advantage of that... :) I'll take advantage of the purge option next time. Thanks again for the info, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconds or minutes is more common for templates without a huge number of uses, and each page using the template has to be purged to update so it's usually best to just wait for the job queue to do it automatically. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Help on 2017 jallikattu protests article
Please look at last few edits of 2017 jallikattu protests, i think the account "True Tamilan" may be a sock puppet. Aadhitharajan''talk 09:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, I've asked admin SpacemanSpiff to indef him. Since I've edited the article quite a bit, I'm somewhat involved, so I'd prefer to abstain from administrating there unless it's clear vandalism. I don't think it would be a huge issue if I blocked him myself, but just to be sure... Unrelated, it looks like you have incomplete italic formatting '' in your signature. It doesn't seem to be affecting anything, but I thought I'd bring it up, because I'm OCD like that. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, As i am using from a mobile device, i can't able to use tags properly. Thankyou,  Aadhitharajan''talk 16:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Help on List of highest-Domestic collection of Indian films
This article is supposed to be covering the highest domestic gross of all Indian films, but it contains only information only on Hindi films. I even sent a request in the talk page, for non-Hindi films to be added to the page, bt there was no response. I request you to suggest what can/should be done. Rajan51 (talk) 9:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, and the editors who are interested in Indian films really need to start coming together to discuss these sorts of things. That was the point of why the Indian cinema task force was created, so that people interested in the subject could get together and figure out how to bring high academic standards to the problematic world of Indian film. That article is messy. I don't know whether there is any precedent for an article of such narrow focus. Domestic nett? Very weird. Some of the data is really confusing, like "Top Spot Maximum Time By Actor" and "Top Spot By Film As Highest Domestic Net Collection Since 1940". It's also not clear why the focus is on nett instead of gross, which is what we typically care about. But anyway, if your complaint is that it focuses only on Hindi films, you should probably consider the option that the article should be renamed so that it includes "Hindi". If content about Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, etc. was added to the article, it would be pretty massive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be a good idea to merge it with List of highest-grossing Indian films? Rajan51 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The scope of List of highest-grossing Indian films is gross revenue. Merging an article that focuses on nett revenue would not be ideal. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Help on article Devdas (2002 Hindi film)
Hi. I am here to seek your help for article Devdas. A problematic IP user 12.159.30.5 is creating havoc in this article. This user is repeatedly tempering with box office figures citing an unreliable blog source "Bollybusiness" and claiming that it's figures have been derived from an old BOI archive which is clearly false. Moreover, this user misinterpret even these sources which are defined by himself not knowing difference between "Total gross", "Nett gross", "Domestic gross", "Oversees gross" and "Distributor share". That "Bollybusiness" blog mentions Nett worldwide gross of Devdas as ₹61.5 crore and separately mentions Distributor's share as ₹36 crore in bracket. If we add these two to get total worldwide gross, it is ₹97.5 crore which is near to figures mentioned by Box Office India (BOI) site (₹99.87 crore ) while this user is inserting ₹360 million in Box office gross in infobox. And that archive of BOI this user points to is very old, unclear, outdated and unsuitable to be usd as a source. And what is the need and logic in using an old and under-detailed archive if we have original updated sources of BOI ? I gave two warning messages to this user and also placed comments at selected portions of article but this user restores the entire old version of article edited by him on 3 March 2017. Regarding my messages, this user seem to either ignore those messages or doesn't even see his talk page at all. I requested page protection of this article two times but they declined citing not enough disruptive activity as reason. This user shamelessly restores his edits almost everyday when they are undone. By the way this Bollybusiness source was firstly inserted by another IP 199.67.7.33 on 22 February 2017. Since the other IP is so much hellbent on using these sources, I can bet both IPs are used by same person. Please help me to deal with this user or guide me what should I do. Vibhss (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the first thing I would do is take a deep breath--calling them an idiot, even if they called you one, is a personal attack and I think you're better than that. No, the blog should not be used, but the BOI archive could presumably be used. It's worth noting that some of the figures change, like the nett gross here is different from the nett gross here and in the latter example, the gross has disappeared. Also, it's quite possible that BOI here is adjusting for inflation, which would really suck if they're not disclosing that, as we do not use inflation adjusted gross figures in the infobox. Using adjusted figures makes it impossible to compare this film to other films that don't use inflation-adjusted figures. I've left a note on the user's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

About Devdas's box office figures
In response to your reply in our previous discussion: No, the ₹998 million figure is not adjusted for inflation as this BOI source clearly mentions adjusted nett gross at ₹1.9 billion. You can check yourself in the source. Just placing the message at talk page of that user will do no good because that user perhaps don't even see his talk page. Otherwise he would not have repeated vandalism after reading my message. Data of BOI archives differ and when original sources of BOI (precisely detailed separately mentioning worldwide gross, nett gross, first week, adjusted gross etc.) are available, there is no need to use archives. Anyways, thanks for your prompt reply. Please respond soon to this message of mine also. Vibhss (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason why I suspect it is adjusted for inflation, is that the figure presented in the 2004 archive is only 47 crore. If I run that figure through INRConvert, that's inr 470000000. 1.3 billion is closer to 998 million. If the movie was no longer in theatres by 2004, where did the extra money come from? How did it go from 47 crore to 99.8 crore? Either it was adjusted for inflation or the site is taking into account other revenue streams instead of focusing on box office sales. Since BOI does not define what "adjusted" means, you are making an assumption that "adjusted nett gross" means that the figure is adjusted for inflation as opposed to being adjusted per some other metric. Anyway, this is something that members of WP:ICTF should be discussing with you. Remember also that there are no absolutes in Indian film financials, as corruption, promotion, poor journalism, fabrications all influence the data. The Tamil film Kabali is either the #3 highest-grossing Indian film of all time, or it's somewhere around #13. Depends on which stack of lies you are looking at. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Help
Devdas (2002 film) requires protection right now as one of the two IPs I mentioned have started edit war with me. You can't expect these hooligans (again sorry but I have to call them that) to calmly discuss anything. Please help. Vibhss (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected for one day. I'd recommend you open a discussion on the article's talk page to address your concerns. If the IP editor refuses to participate, the page can be protected for a bit longer. I don't like using semi-protection for content disputes. I'm only using it in this instance to encourage the IP editor to start talking. You would help the process by opening the discussion yourself. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you but...
Thank you so much for semi-protecting Devdas. But your idea of opening discussion with IP editors on this article's talk page sounds a bit difficult. Firstly, apart from you and me, this article has not been edited by any other registered user recently. Mostly, IPs edit this page. So, chances of another registered user getting involved in this discussion are scarce (almost nil). I don't expect any of these two IPs to agree for discussion because the way they repeated vandalism even after my messages on their talk pages, they don't either know that there is a talk page of theirs and of the articles they edit or they are simply ignorant if they know. Also, both of these IPs are not frequent or "experienced" IP editors. They have very few contributions (less than 10, mostly on Devdas page) to their credit. '''Moreover, the conflict is not only about which source should be used, it is also about the interpretation of that source on article; it is also important to correctly interpret a source on article. These two IPs repeatedly change Box office gross in infobox to ₹360 million which is neither mentioned by "Bollybusiness" nor by that old BOI archive.''' I think we mention "total worldwide gross" (Nett gross + Distributor's share) on wiki film articles. As I said, these IPs don't know difference b/w "Total gross", "Nett gross", "Domestic gross", "Oversees gross" and "Distributor share". If they knew, they would have at least correctly interpreted the source (Acc. to their favored Bollybusiness source also, the total gross comes up ₹97.5 crore after adding Nett gross + Distributor share). I would rather suggest to extend the semi-protection of this page by 1 to 6 months. I am willing to start discussion with WP:ICTF users as you suggested but don't know where should I do this ? Vibhss (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you'd please keep the entire discussion under one subject heading. These aren't different discussions. To your points above, if two editors dispute X, (i.e. you and the Dallas-based IP editor) then they both need to discuss X by opening a discussion on the article's talk page. I'm strongly urging you to do that, because it will help you in the long run. "Look, I opened a discussion about this, invited at least two IPs and they failed to participate after a week, so I changed the data back. Then they came back and changed it again, still with no discussion." See the difference? Once you open the discussion, you should also drop a talkback on both of the recent IP talk pages so that they get good-faith notifications that there is a discussion on the matter. (IPs don't have watchlists, only logged-in users do, so they won't know automatically that an edit has been made to the talk page.) If the editor keeps hopping IPs and refuses to engage in discussion, then that would be disruptive and further measures could be taken. But asking for 1-6 month semi-protection for something that's been changed 5 times is a disproportionate response to the disruption. You should also be aware that your actions could be construed as edit-warring as well. This is why it is crucial to open a discussion and seek consensus rather than continue to revert, so that your hands are clean in the matter. Also, don't be compelled to revert. It's not going to kill anyone if wrong information is in an article for a few days. You could also contact members of ICTF and neutrally ask them to add their thoughts. "Hi Editor1, I'm involved in a dispute at X article and I'm curious if you have any thoughts about the matter." You cannot encourage them to respond a certain way though, that would be considered canvassing. With regard to your point about 360 million being incorrect, I agree with you and think it might be a reading comprehension issue, or a matter of general ignorance about what data belongs in gross. If I were to care what bollybusiness had to say (and I don't) I would interpret the worldwide gross as 61.5 crore, not 36 crore. But again, this is something you should bring up on the talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Vjmlhds
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . This concerns and solicits community resolution.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible block evasion
A certain blocked user may be attempting to proxy-edit via his talk page. As you may recall, it wouldn't be the first time this user has attempted to evade a block in such a manner. Levdr1 lp /  talk  05:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

talk
Thanks for to guide me, but I recently starts editing and I did this ending for experimental learning soon l been best editor But I have to say something that edit naagin full story Sri Harsha Malempati (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Another Appreciation
I really appreciate being told how to deal with users without edit warring. I'm still learning how to deal with IP Hoppers especially the one from North Carolina who messed with me at Adventures of the Little Koala. It also wasn't easy ignoring their opinions from their point of view, but I'm still trying. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job! I know it's not easy, but it may help if you keep in mind that the disruptions are not personally directed at you. It can feel that way when you're the one who's constantly fixing the disruptions, but that's not what's happening. There are lots of different types of people in the world and sometimes we deal with people who maybe have cognitive problems, or who have behavioral problems and are poorly supervised, or any number of other possibilities. In some cases I'm sure that we deal with mechanical disruptions--people with an axe to grind with Wikipedia who set up computer programs to vandalize air dates for example. Why get upset at a computer? Anyway, there's so many different possible explanations for who's causing the disruptions and why, but the bottom line is that it's not directed at you personally. Try if you can to divorce yourself of any emotional attachment. Not sure if you like Star Trek, but adopting a Spock-like approach to disruption may be helpful. "The vandalism is...illogical. The only logical response is to change the data back." Hope it helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits against consensus
I thought I'd bring this up with you since you were involved in the discussion, so you know what went on (although if you're like me the details are a bit fuzzy after all this time). Back in July/August last year we had an RfC at Talk:Arrow (season 1)/Archive 1, and the consensus was to use common names. However, User:HamedH94 is continuing to use whatever names as he sees fit in articles, usually last names, even changing articles to the last names when they've been using the common name. He has been warned, but is paying no heed to the warnings, flatly denying one request to stop changing names, and even claiming that he isn't doing anything wrong, despite consensus being clear. His latest post is uncivil, and I can see this continuing. His edits are otherwise OK, but it is a lot of work for editors to restore the common names. I'm not really sure where to go with this, and I'm not sure other admins at ANI would understand. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Well, since I did participate in the discussion, it might be preferable if I did not administrate here for concern of being involved. I'm still learning what is or isn't considered by the community to be an involved situation. Personally I think it's silly if admins can't express an opinion in favor of X and still enforce X, since if I was opposed to X I'd still be required to enforce it. But anyway... If he persists, I would endorse a block. If you're not feeling up to ANI, you could approach another admin directly, I suppose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your reluctance to administrate per WP:UNINVOLVED. I should have made myself more clear, I was really just after your involvement again, even as a declared involved admin at ANI should I have to go there. Thanks. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can count on me. :) Again, I think it's sort of a weird issue. I participated a great deal in a number of community discussions about television--am I not allowed to administrate in areas of TV? Seems stupid. Anyway... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a bit strange but, since you haven't actually been involved in the current dispute I think you'd be OK. Still it's better to be cautious. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Genre Salads in articles
Hi there. Quite few weeks before, i had made an edit of American Psycho (film)'s genre, where it was written as "BLACK COMEDY-HORROR". However, IMDB states it's just a "crime drama film", as well as some other sites denotes as a "slasher". However, in same case of Fight Club where film genre is undecided as per on lede and probably i had even removed the genres too from AS. Even in talk page i had specified if this film is uncategorized in genre issue remove it unless "A SOURCE SAYS". So does even keeping black comedy/horror in the lede of AS is obvious or not? See the next example as FC is touted as a psychological thriller where i kept my sources and wrote on talk page. So i came here to have an advice for this ongoing genre salad dramas in articles as same in Indian films too. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This might be something you'd want to run past WikiProject Film, as there are many helpful people there who have many good opinions on this sort of thing. Genre is always going to be a headache, because everybody sees artistic works differently, and people who have problems with objectivity are always going to try to conform the artistic work to fit their perspective. A few thoughts: The lead sentence is often crammed with information, so being simpler is typically the best approach, and focusing on the general genre rather than numerous sub-genres seems to be the best.
 * Surely a romantic comedy that also happens to be a historical period film could have the latter information delivered elsewhere in the article. "The film, which is set in 1850, focuses on the rise of King Shemp of Argentina..." Similarly, the black comedy aspect of Fight Club doesn't require inclusion in the opening sentence and could be addressed elsewhere. What I usually do when dealing with genre, is find a few reliable sources like Rotten Tomatoes or AFI and figure out where they intersect. So with Fight Club in mind, I'd go here and go here and and settle on "drama", since that seems to be the one aspect both sites agree with.
 * For American Psycho, I'd go here and here and settle on "suspense". It's not a perfect system, and other editors might have their own methodologies or objections, ("Fight Club is way more than a basic drama!!") but that's just how I'd do it, since the object is to present the general genre that most sources seem to agree on, and then expand elsewhere. And in some cases, if genre is not clear-cut or if other sources don't exist, I might even go with a site like Amazon to see how they categorise it, and then pick the most general genre, since these sites often mix up keywords and genres. But that's just what I'd do if all my other sources were unhelpful. Hope this helps somewhat. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

UTRS
It's been 3 days since you reserved this UTRS appeal. Do you intend to do something with it?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I must admit, I know zero about UTRS--I signed up so I could look at the block reviews. It's possible that I clicked on something by accident or as a test, but I am fairly sure I never deliberately initiated any appeal reserve. If you could help me figure out how to undo it, I will gladly do so. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I figured it out. I've released my "reserve". Sorry for the hassle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Anas5555
I really agree with u and respect your way of thinking Anas5555 (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Hemunarine
hi is this a valid source "http://www.boxofficeamount.com/sandalwood/raajakumara-7-days-collection-7th-day-earning-1st-week-business/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemunarine (talk • contribs) 05:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * New comments belong at the bottom of talk pages, not here, where you appear to be replying to a comment from 2016. I have fixed this. As to your query, I'm struggling to think of reasons why you would think boxofficeamount.com is a reliable source. Have you ever heard of it? Do you know anything about it? Who's behind it? What reliable reporters write for this publication? Who are the editors? What status have they achieved among other publications? If you don't have answers to these questions, then no, boxofficeamount.com is not a good source. We only care about sources that have well-established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

as per the reference no 42 "Maanikya 100 days collection". Archived from the original on 2014-08-09. the gross collections of the movie maanikya is 35 crores but it is in 4th place and its collections are given as 43.5 crores in the list of highest grossing kannada movies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemunarine (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes ~ . This will append your name and a time stamp, so that is clear who wrote the content, and when. As to your query, you'll have to be more specific about what article you are referring to, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The value of your work
Hello C. I wanted to let you know that the information box linking to past discussions that you added to "infobox person" is already paying off. I was about to respond to this thread Help desk by linking to the past discussion but another editor beat me to it. It was so much easier to find the discussion because of your efforts so I wanted to let you know how quickly its value has been shown. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, cool! I love the rare success story. Thanks for the note! Happy April, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Dr Thaane Wala
I want your help can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Thaane Wala (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can, but only if you are specific about what you need help with. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

i created a draft it is now complete which template and how to add for next i mean which template i should add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Thaane Wala (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

i wrote on the top on Draft:Shahzadpur but it show nothing responding
 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ~ . This will append your name and a timestamp to the end of your comment. As for your question, I'm not sure exactly what you'd expect to see. It takes a while for editors to look at newly-submitted drafts, and as the template notes, it can take up to a few weeks. In the interim, you would be wise to beef up the article with more references that describe this region, as it's important to establish notability. Please see our General Notability Guideline and our notability guidelines on geographic features. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing/Darien Amos
BTW would you let me know when I'm done with this? Or you can consider this a request to speedy it when you're finished if you like. GoldenRing (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, do you want me just to speedy the output page, or is there a script that should be deleted as well? Also, do you know of a fast way to sort the IPs so that they only appear once? I don't mean that you should change the script, I'd just like to get a rough list of the IPs that have added this so I can ask someone to help figure out if a range block is possible. (Not my personal cup of tea...) If there's no easy way, it's no big deal, I can muddle through it manually. Thanks again for the help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just speedy the output page when you're done - there's no script behind it, it's a script I run locally and then paste the output into my userspace.
 * Here's a list of the unique IPs listed:
 * 197.86.146.19
 * 197.87.182.172
 * 197.89.105.157
 * 197.89.108.26
 * 197.89.108.29
 * 197.89.11.42
 * 197.89.12.100
 * 197.89.12.180
 * 197.89.128.136
 * 197.89.144.81
 * 197.89.158.251
 * 197.89.201.81
 * 197.89.20.236
 * 197.89.20.59
 * 197.89.6.240
 * 197.89.8.132
 * I'm no expert in these things either, but it doesn't look very feasible for a rangeblock. My guess is that this is someone who has a dynamic IP at home but occasionally edits from work, too; the first two are from a range that's used for business customers of a South African ISP and the remainder are from the same ISP's home DSL dynamic pool.  Both ranges are very large; the home DSL range (IIRC from when I looked at this earlier) is a /13 network, meaning there are around half a million addresses in the range.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS just so you're aware, I (stupidly) moved my laptop from wifi to ethernet while the script was running so the last few articles it tried to check failed - so it's possible there's one or two lurking. I can re-run it if you like (takes about 3/4 hour) or you could just do a manual search for 'Darien Amos' once you're done reverting and see what's left.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for all of this. I think I have enough info now. I'll have to do the manual cleanup, but at least I got most of the easy ones done already. Thanks for the help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify
Hello. I was wondering if you could share your thoughts, if any, at my talk page under User talk:Levdr1lp. I also need clarification on site policy. I pinged you, but I know at least one admin who has disabled that feature. Levdr1 lp /  talk  13:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Re:Amvicky
Seeing in 's block log and noticed that you blocked then unblocked her earlier this year, you may be interested in this SPI case. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference help
Are these sources good "http://hindaily.com/entertainment/puneeth-rajkumarraajakumara-1st-week-worldwide-box-office-collections-7202/" and "http://govtjobexperts.in/raajakumar-17th-day-box-office-collection/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathya Narayana1995 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:ICTF for an example of Indian references that are considered sufficient, as well as our guidelines on user-generated content. I'm not sure why someone would think "govtjobexperts"--which according to their name suggests an expertise in government jobs, not Indian films--would be sufficient as a reference, but as a general rule any site that you've never heard of is probably a bad choice of reference, and anything that even resembles a blog should be quickly avoided. Anyone with an internet connection can open a website, you see, so we only care what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say. If you don't know who's behind the site or what makes the person a reputable expert in Indian films, then you should avoid the source. So to answer your question directly, no, those are absolutely not good sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Explanation for the revert.
After looking at pages like that of Avengers, I realized that it is OK to add trailer information in the page. Can you please explain why the trailer information is unnecessary?Tahershahsuperfan (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I linked to WP:TRAILER in my initial edit, and I explained community preference on your talk page along with providing a link to WP:TRAILER. So I'm confused what you're asking me to expand upon here. WP:TRAILER says:
 * "Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. Instead, use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it.
 * The bolded text is bolded in the guideline and indicates unambiguously that editors should not add trivial content about "customary marketing methods such as trailers". Your edit restored information about customary marketing methods such as trailers. If there was something astounding about the marketing campaign that drew the attention of scholars, like a well-crafted weeks long publicity stunt, that might be noteworthy, but that wasn't present in your reversion. The guideline gives the example of the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield. And, as I said, we are not here to sell tickets or to drive readers to the film's promotional materials. I hope this helps you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Chilean IPs and El Tigre
Do you know anything about these El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera edits from Chilean IP editors? I saw you semi-protected the article on the cartoon itself. Now, I see edits to 2019 in film and List of Warner Bros. films from what looks like the same IP editor who was targeting El Tigre. What drew my attention initially are fabricated citations, such as, which cites Variety Insight's database. The database says nothing about an El Tigre film. Is this the sort of disruption that got El Tigre semi-protected? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Chilean IP is hoaxing future dubious programs, that is, he's claiming certain kids' shows are coming back this year or next year, never with any references. Please see my recent edits here. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who
In the discussion I have given the link for you in the header, consensus has been reached, but one editor now is flogging the dead horse (Bondegezou), so could you please close the discussion. Thank you. T ed E dwards  12:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC) If you only see this message after 18:20UTC, please ignore this message. T ed E dwards  16:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Elementary (TV series)
Hey, Cyphoid! Hello from your favorite (ha!) nuisance. Would you mind putting a short semi- on Elementary (TV series). The most recent episode was postponed when a football game ran over, and just ran last night. Unfortunately, the IMDB says it ran April 9, and we've got a wave of international IPs or an IP hopper changing it back to April 9, even with a hidden note explaining the delay. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ at List of Elementary episodes. 4 day semi. And you're not a nuisance! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bless! Four days ought to do the job.  Thanks!! --Drmargi (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Names of characters of upcoming films
Vensatry says we shouldn't add names of characters of upcoming films as that borders on WP:CRYSTAL. I thought the policy only prohibits unverifiable info, especially regarding future events. Although Dhanush's character in the upcoming Enai Noki Paayum Thota is called Ragu (at around 0:32 in the official teaser), he put TBA, calling it WP:CRYSTAL. Is he wrong to do so? I'm sure he is, but he has rarely lost an argument. Nowhere in the policy's page does it say not to add names of characters from upcoming films. If you aren't good at discussing this, please invite someone who you know is. Kailash29792 (talk)  05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a discussion at Talk:Enai Noki Paayum Thota so I'm not sure where I am supposed to comment. If a source (like a newspaper) announced that "Dhanush plays Raghu, a cop who doesn't play by the rules" (or whatever,) then I could support inclusion without concern for WP:CRYSTAL because the claim is unambiguous. In my interpretation, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't say that you can't add future content, rather, that you can't add future content that isn't properly sourced. Ex:
 * "My brother is Dhanush and he says he plays Raghu" = bad
 * "Rumours suggest Dhanush plays Raghu, a cop who doesn't play by the rules." = bad
 * The problem I have with using the teaser, is that there is insufficient context to say definitively that the character's name is Raghu. If Dhanush is playing an undercover cop, his false identity could be Raghu, in which case, that would not be the character's actual name. Is the female character crazy, on drugs, or hallucinating? Maybe she's calling him Raghu because he reminds her of her dead brother? There's insufficient context. So in this particular case I'd be averse to including the character name until more definitive, unambiguous data is uncovered. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User
Admin, please take a look at user:Lalettanlalu. A vandalism only account. Adding factual errors. . 103.15.255.88 (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of it. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

== DEAR Cyphoidbomb I think Ason27 is a Jyothika hater & she /he tried to make her out from the lists where she(Jo) is well deserved. I respect both Simran and Jyothika, both top heroines of South Film industry. The best example for her hates towards Jyot... ==

DEAR Cyphoidbomb I think Ason27 is a Jyothika hater & she /he tried to make her out from the lists where she(Jo) is well deserved. I respect both Simran and Jyothika, both top heroines of South Film industry. The best example for her hates towards Jyothika can be seen at the editing of Best Actress Award Tamil Filmfare &  she really removed most of the nominees at that category. GOOD morning (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will respond to this on your talk page. Please keep this conversation there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Robbery 1705 again
Cyphoidbomb, would you keep an eye on Robberey1705? He's gotten rather aggressive with accusations of stalking and vandalism again, and is trying to force an edit based on something someone he claims to know at CBS said. He's just clueless. I'm particularly concerned about a hodge-podge guest list at The Blacklist: Redemption designed to justify a list with three brief appearances by main cast from Blacklist, and the forced edit noted above at Doubt (TV series). He's clueless about BRD and consensus, and downright belligerent when his edits are questioned; see the talk page for Doubt. But I'm noting a lot of aggressive edit summaries in his edit history. I know this guy's had issues under several user names, so I thought a heads up might be in order. --Drmargi (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The stuff about Doubt having produced 13 episodes seems like it could have easily been prevented with this source. I'll try to look more into this later, but I think an ESL issue might be at the core. No, I don't like the "my friend said" method of editing. While I can believe this editor has an "in" in the business, they need to be able to distinguish and separate what they know from what they can prove, and only include the latter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The stupid thing is, he provided the source, and this could have been handled quickly and amicably. And yes, the issue that he expects people to take his word for whatever he's adding because he's got some indeterminate connection to the industry.  But it's his tendency to approach being edited with both guns blazing that's the real issue.  In the course of a very routine couple of edits he: a) accused me of stalking him and called me stalkermargi; b) carried on as though I had no right to request he gain consensus for at that point unsourced content; c) gave me a deadline to respond to his talk page posting (which he didn't honor), then threatened to report something indeterminate and; d) falsely claimed in an edit summary that I was trying to prove Variety wrong.  I just warned him about calling an editor he didn't agree with a vandal, something he does a lot.  He's aggressive to the point of being a bully, and that's got to stop.  (/vent)--Drmargi (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RE: Reliable sources
Thank you for letting me know, I didn't know about looking into the websites further. I actually got the source from the Raajakumara page's infobox; since that source was already there, I had assumed it to be reliable. I will be sure to look further into the websites I plan on referencing before whether or not I choose to reference them. Shrev64 (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You
I am correcting the problematic editing and fan POV done by other editors in Jr. Ntr. I will work on it and correct my mistakes as per your feedback. Kannadigey (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)