User talk:Kannadigey

Kannadigey (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:Actress sarada.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Actress sarada.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Problematic editing
There were a number of changes you made in this string of 17 edits that were problematic, including the reintroduction of fluffy "blockbuster" and "super-hit" garbage, and completely inappropriate nonsense like your subjective evaluation "The film became a super hit due to the hilarious episodes and great comedy timing done by Jr. NTR." What's very interesting, is that some of your edit summaries seem to be aware of the problems of POV editing and WP:PUFFERY, so I'm dying to know how a brand new editor with an awareness of established Wikipedia policy still manages to insert problematic, POV laden, subjective puffery into an article? And in this edit, you claim to be removing lots of problems, yet all you did was format a subheading. And here you added Janatha Garage, but label it as "pov pushing". It's almost as though the edit summaries are completely fabricated and meant to distract other editors from your restoration of an earlier, problematic version of the article. There were other problems, too, like your introduction of rumour in the article, your removal of clarify templates without resolving the issues "considered...NTR's finest performances in his career..." And so forth. I'm reverting your edits and I strongly encourage you to go slower and to use clear edit summaries that accurately describe the changes you've made going forward, and please refresh your understanding of our policy on neutral point of view, since your edits aren't very consistent with it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)