User talk:Lamppost3

Lamppost3 (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sonia Agarwal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Country belongs in lead
Hi there, re: this edit, two things: 1) Telugu is not a country, and country belongs in the lead. "2016 Indian Telugu-language film" solves this problem and clearly communicates to our global readership that Telugu is a language, much like we might say "2016 French Spanish-language film." 2) Please see Template:Reflist instructions where you will note that the "2" switch has been deprecated. Consensus prefers a "30 em" value so that web browsers can decide how many columns are displayed based on monitor size, rather than forcing 2 columns on everyone. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, in this edit I removed content you added. I think my edit summary was pretty clear: Critical response was not adequately supported. We don't cherrypick reviews that support our viewpoint and then extrapolate that this represents overall critical response. Quote existing summaries. Otherwise, all anyone would need to do is find a glowing review of the film to say "critical response was generally positive", or if the person hated the film, they could find a unfavorable review and write "critical response was generally negative". It opens the door to dishonest editorials, which is why we should be quoting sources that have already summarized the critical response for us. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Response
Regarding these comments on my talk page, I have already explained in detail why the changes you made were problematic both in my edit summaries as well as on your talk page. However, let me go through them once again, since you have yet again restored many of the problems. I think it's wiser to keep the conversation contained to your talk page, since you are most likely to benefit from this discussion. As detailed above, I went through and clearly explained in each of my edit summaries why I made the changes I made, and all of them are supported by existing guidelines or common WikiProject Film community usage. Restoring the problematic content is not constructive. Lastly, while you may remove notices and warnings from your talk page as you have done here, doing so is considered proof that you have read and understand the issues raised. I'll give you an opportunity to respond or fix these issues yourself, otherwise, I'll remove the problems yet again. If you're going to edit film articles, you should familiarize yourself with our Manual of Style for Film and Template:Infobox film. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Veerappan is a 2016 Indian Hindi-language biographical film was changed to Veerappan (None Like Him Ever Existed) is a 2016 Indian biographical film What happened to the language? That's an important detail that belongs in the opening sentence. What is "None Like Him Ever Existed"? Is that a translation of the word "Veerappan"? If so, that should be labeled. If not, it doesn't belong in the lead, because we don't include marketing slogans in the lead sentence. Alien (film) does not read Alien (In Space No One Can Hear You Scream) is a 1979 British-American science-fiction horror film"
 * caption in the infobox is used to describe the image, i.e. "Theatrical poster" not "None Like Him Ever Existed'".
 * POV: The film is heavily based on Ram Gopal Varma's successful Kannada docudrama Killing Veerappan again, says whom? Who arrived at this conclusion? Why are we using POV-weighted words like "heavily"? "Successful" is weighted POV that only serves to promote. We could easily say "the film is based on Ram Gopal Varma's Kannada docudrama" without the needless editorials, and again, provided that we quote a specific voice who has described it as having been based on Veerappan.
 * WP:TRAILER and WP:NPOV: The theatrical trailer of the film, was released on 18 April 2016 to positive reviews. 1) Why do we care about the film's trailer? That's normal run-of-the-mill marketing. 2) Whose voice are you quoting when you say "to positive reviews"? A moot point, since we don't arbitrarily include information about trailers. And, for your edification (although I previously explained this,) we do not cherrypick positive reviews and then summarize those reviews as positive. We quote professionals who have already summarized the general response, or, we omit such commentary entirely. "Positive reviews" represents an opinion, and if that opinion is coming from editors, that represents a weighted POV statement.
 * WP:TRAILER: "The first look was released on 15 April 2016" - Why do we care? Releasing a first look is normal marketing. Nothing noteworthy about that.
 * Unsourced: Taran Adarsh wrote "Veerappan gives an insight into the life and times of the dreaded bandit. RGV is in good form.
 * Unsourced: Faridoon Shahryar of "Bollywood Hungama" stated "Ram Gopal Varma is back to the grind with a gripping narrative and he keeps you interested throughout".