User talk:Gauthamravichandran

Your Files for upload request
Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 24 (2016 film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''Diff: "Blockbuster" is a meaningless, subjective term. Additionally, we do not use blogs as references. Anybody with an internet connection can start a blog and claim to be an expert in any subject. Galaxyreporter.com is a blog.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to C Ravichandran, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 16:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at 24 (2016 film), you may be blocked from editing. ''Diffs: More "blockbuster" stuff and "major success". We're not here to gush over films. You're also too closely paraphrasing the sources, introducing inaccessible jargon about A/B/C centres as if our global readership is supposed to know what any of that means. This is why we don't closely paraphrase, we write thoughts from scratch.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

And here you changed the summary of critical response for Suriya from "mixed" to "positive". You provided no reference, nor was there an existing reference, so it's unclear exactly what your edit summary means: "added content within the provided reference". There is also no sourced summary of critical response at 24 (2016 film), so this just looks like you're pulling promotional fluff out of thin air. Please don't add unsourced content of this type again. Our personal opinions don't belong in articles. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Blogs as references
Hi there, I've previously explained that we do not use faceless blogs as references because anyone can create a blog or any website and print whatever they want. So it's unclear why in these edits you would use MetroMasti, another faceless source, as a reference. Also, per WP:RS/IMDB, we do not use IMDb as a reference because just like the blogs, it is user-contributed and they don't vet financial content that appears there. Please familiarise yourself with our reliable sourcing guidelines as well as our guidelines on user-generated content. The general rule is that any source we use has to have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Unless you're planning to argue that IMDb and Metro Masti or any other source has such a reputation, you shouldn't be using them. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Your addition to Bairavaa has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ''Diff: Content submitted is indistinguishable from content found here. A good life lesson: Don't copy things.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Blockbuster"
Please stop fluffing up film articles with subjective puffery like meaningless "blockbuster" labels as found here. We don't republish subjective declarations as though they were facts. I've previously approached you about this. If you keep doing it, it will result in your account being blocked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ravichandran C for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ravichandran C is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ravichandran C until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sir, there are clearly verified links.. And DC books is the number one publisher in Kerala.. Their links cant be faked Gauthamravichandran (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked for these changes. Your claims of Si3 grossing 130 crore are not supported by the source you are using, this, thus your changes are indistinguishable from vandalism Further, your attempts to puff up the gross by using obnoxious hyperbolic language like "huge commercial success" and "huge commercial hit" are inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. You've been approached about this before, yet for some reason you keep doing it. Since either don't understand the problem or don't care, I've interrupted your editing privileges to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ravichandran c


The article Ravichandran c has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  05:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ravichandran c


A tag has been placed on Ravichandran c requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  05:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please justify this
Hi there, please justify this edit. You used this source. Assuming that Pinkzilla was a proper reference (which it is not), where does it say definitively that Golmaal Again is a remake of 'In Ghost House Inn''? Note that I do expect an answer to this, because I have to figure out whether or not you are capable of editing constructively at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating our neutral point of view policy at Spyder (film) by using hyperbolic language, e.g. calling a movie a "disaster". Subjective, weighted words like "blockbuster", "super hit", "flop", "failure", "disaster" have no place in a neutral encyclopedia. We don't gush over subjects, nor do we humiliate them. And we do not regurgitate subjective declarations as though they were unassailable facts. Since you have failed to respond to previous notices on your talk page, I have no indication that you understand the problem you are creating. If you do this sort of thing after your block expires, the next block will be indefinite. During your block, please read WP:NPOV.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Continued failure to understand WP:NPOV
Two big issues here, you are attributing content to Andhra Box Office, which has never been established as a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. See WP:ICTF. Also important, you yet again appear to be fixated on stamping another film with a subjective label like "flop". Stop this. Read WP:NPOV immediately. If you do this again, I'll take away your editing privileges. This behavior is obnoxious, and I don't seem to be capable of communicating this to you. Review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes uses "Fresh" and "Rotten" as its stamps, but you will not find these in articles, because they are improper tone for an encyclopedia, and they contravene our policy on article neutrality. We are not here to stamp films with marks of effusive praise or shame. Same issues here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Ratsasan Plot
Though it is true that the plot section acts as SPOILER, it is allowed on Wikipedia. Read WP:SW. Please make sure you do not delete sections due to this reason in the future. Hermit  Curator  17:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)