User talk:DarpSinghh

Box office
Hi there, re: this, per Template:Infobox film instructions, the gross parameter is for the gross value a film brought in through ticket sales at the box office. This is why the infobox produces the label "box office" before the value. Pre-release income is not relevant to box office, as it has nothing to do with ticket sales. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add subjective labels
Hi there, please don't add subjective labels like "superhit" or "blockbuster" or "failure" or "flop" or anything like that as you did here. We don't regurgitate subjective declarations like this. If a source called a film a "steaming pile of shit", surely you don't think that we'd present that as an incontrovertible fact, right? Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, so we use neutral language to describe things. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, That's really ironic and hypocrite because you guys (Krishh wrote "Flop" statement on Tamasha page :) Really disappointing as you guys only leave precedent by creating baseless and useless Blockbuster clubs or Bollywood 100 crore clubs on wikipedia. This 'blockbuster' label for Om Shanti Om was given by you guys. I can come up with endless examples of subjective labels written by your teams on various film and actor pages. One more thing, please learn the difference between Box Office earnings and critical reception of the film as both don't always go hand to hand. If films like Tees Maar Khan, Happy New Year, Dhoom 3 etc. did incredible on box office despite negative reviews, this achievement cannot be considered as Incontrovertible fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarpSinghh (talk • contribs) 08:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just seeing this now. That would only be ironic or hypocritical if I did it, which I did not. If you had a problem with Krish's edit, you should have taken it up with them. Note also the old axiom "two wrongs don't make a right". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary
Please refrain from posting such offensive edit summaries. Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Mixed to ___" or "___ to mixed"
Hi there, re: this edit, "mixed to ___" style phrasing is considered meaningless by multiple WikiProjects, including WikiProject Film. It would be appreciated if you'd please refrain from using it. "Mixed" already means "positive and negative", so by extension, "positive to mixed" means "positive to positive and negative", which, as you can see, is meaningless. If you are interested in the background discussions about these, you can find them here. Also, please be sure that your changes follow MOS:FILM, which reflects community consensus for how film articles should be built. We don't, for example, add decorative critical response tables in film articles. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct FOI Online Awards
FOI Online Awards do not stand for Freedom of Information..., it is mentioned on their official website, at the bottom of each page, next to copyright. Please correct it in your edits. Apoorv2312 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Padmaavat
I am sure it is hurtful for you see your favourite actress and her film getting panned like shit. Isn't? But you need to understand that this is wikipedia and not your personal blog where you can manipulate things. Almost all the reputed critics have panned the film, with criticism ranging from the plot, Deepika and Shahid's wooden and cardboard performances, execution (maybe due to cuts etc), music, tacky special effects, run time and fake production design. The positive reviews on the other hand, either have praised Ranveer's performance or just visuals (saying how it's Bollywood's answer to Baahubali and stuff). Some of the positive reviews like India Today rate the film 3.5 stars but inside the review there are only negative things are found such as this 3.5 out 5 review Padmaavat review: Deepika-Shahid mediocrity covered in jewels, Ranveer not convincing. Tell me whether a mediocre film ever deserves a 3.5 out of 5 rating? Similarly, there are many reviews which talk negatively about the film only to give it 4 and 3 and 3.5 rating. Even after ignoring these reviews, we can say that there are plenty of negative and mixed reviews, which tear the film apart. Now coming to Rotten Tomatoes, it does not take all the Indian reviews to give a final aggregate of the quality of the film. It gives an impression that the film was highly acclaimed but it's not. I removed it from Overseas section because RT source contained just 1 overseas review. So how in the true sense it could be considered as overseas aggregate when rest of the reviews are Indian? Now coming to your query about Bajirao Mastani receiving negative reviews, I would like to tell you that it was not panned like this movie. Maximum reviewers praised the film and it was not at all divisive as this. I have nothing against you or Ms. Padukone. Happy editing. Krish &#124;  Talk  17:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Padmaavat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gross ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Padmaavat check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Padmaavat?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Vishal Bhardwaj
I don't know why your acting stubborn to create a messy unsourced table for awards when they read better in a prose form. Also, "awardsandshows.com" is not a RS. Stop performing such edits. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Notable awards
Hi there, re: these edits, the world has a serious problem with "award mills". Award mills are fly-by-night organisations that give out awards to anybody who applies, and/or who are just handing out awards to make a few rupees. We should be very careful to only include awards that are notable, and per usual standards, notability is demonstrated when an article has been created on the award, and the article has endured community scrutiny about its notability. "Bollywood Film Journalists Award" has no significant coverage in any reliable source that I'm aware of. There's only one Google News hit and it's a passing mention by Filmibeat. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif
You need to be careful with your accusations. I haven't written Kaif's article and my contribution to that article is minimum. If you want to fix mistakes you can do it without leaving (incorrect) accusatory edit summaries. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

== Your submission at Articles for creation: List of highest-grossing Indian films featuring a female protagonist (September 16) ==  Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jupitus Smart was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of highest-grossing Indian films featuring a female protagonist and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of highest-grossing Indian films featuring a female protagonist, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films_featuring_a_female_protagonist Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jupitus_Smart&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films_featuring_a_female_protagonist reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Jupitus Smart  17:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY
This is not a sound decision. We go with what reliable secondary sources say. We don't swallow figures reported from primary sources like the producer's sister or whatever. Anyone involved in the making of an Indian film has an inherent reason to lie about the the finances. Lower budget means greater profit. Higher budget means less liability to distributors. Higher gross = more marketability! And any budget that clearly includes print and advertising fees should be omitted, since production budget has always equaled the cost of making the film, sans marketing fees. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Are you Pakistani?"
Regarding this edit summary: I am warning you once and once only not to guess at editors' motivations based on your assumptions about their race. For what it might matter to you I am Canadian of western European descent. I will address your inappropriate edit at 2019 India-Pakistan standoff on that article's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I support Ivanvector's objection. Attempting to set-up some kind of conspiracy or bias argument is never going to go well, and in many cases it's based on paranoia and in more cases (in my opinion) it's based on deflection of responsibility. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Alert
-- QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of highest-grossing Indian films featuring a female protagonist


Hello, DarpSinghh. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of highest-grossing Indian films featuring a female protagonist".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello, I'm Yamaguchi先生. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Mohit Raina, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

April 2020
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Irrfan Khan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 you often made comments over my grammar and got away with it easily without any warning, ironic.