User talk:Raviteja338

Hi!!!

January 2013
Hello, I'm Raghusri. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Cameraman Gangatho Rambabu because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Because Wiki is not a newspaper to write everything likewise in the newspapers. Raghusri 16:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Raghusri. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Cameraman Gangatho Rambabu because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Raghusri 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hii Raghusri, thank you for contacting me. First of all, I don't think that this has any thing to do with being 'constructive'.If the thing is constructive(to what ever you think it is), then it manifests itself in the facts.You cannot make-believe anything 'constructive' by hiding facts.In the welcome page, it is explicitly written that "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page". I have provided facts with references which can be verified and did so in a neutral way without adding my personal expressions.

Because Wiki is not a newspaper to write everything likewise in the newspapers. --- Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor somebody's personal agenda.Wikipedia is Encyclopedia which contains all the facts. I did not provide any speculation or personal expression or promotional advertisement for the film.All i did was to provide facts to the readers.

I hope that you read this message with an unbiased mind. Raviteja338 (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all i appreciate you for trying to contribute to Wiki. According to my opinion it's unnecessary because even if you provide facts also. Why because you created another section that contains contoversial information about the movie and so it's unnecessary because Wiki is not a newspaper to include everything about a particular topic likewise in newspapers. Generally film article's contains these below stated section's or templates only : Infobox film (template), Lead section, Plot, Cast, Crew, and in Production section there should be sub sections like Development, Casting, Filming. And in Release section again sub sections like Critical reception, Box office, Home media. Soundtrack and in it Infobox album (template) and may be another sub section reception about audio of the film in this section, References section, external links. That's enough for a film article. As i said before creating another subsection with controversial information naming with section heading Controversy would not benefit wikipedia even if you provide facts with citations from reliable sources. For now i have reverted you edit taking into Good faith considertaion. You are telling me the same thing i said to you (repeating). Then please ask another expereinced editor. I am posting his name : Krzna (or) simply open a discussion in That article talk page. I hope you also read this with unbiased mind. Thank you. Raghusri (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Cameraman Gangatho Rambabu. Thank you. Raghusri 10:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Cameraman Gangatho Rambabu does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Raghusri 10:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Cameraman Gangatho Rambabu. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Please open a discussion than engaging in edit war likewise you did Raghusri 10:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:
Please specify what am I trying to promote here...

I did not promote anything and i dont want to be in Editwar. This film created quite a controversy in A.P. as early as the second day of its release and it is unfair not to include this matter in the wikipedia page, dont you think ? As you can see in the wikipedia pages of Hey Ram, The Da Vinci Code (film) and many others, controversies can be included in the response section of the film.And by the way, it is not controversial information, it is information about controversy created by the film.

I have assumed good faith while editing the article and I hope that you do too.I am open to contact Krzna to discuss about this matter.But as it seems that you know him well, I'd like you to welcome him to this discussion.I'll wait one day for your reply.... Raviteja338 (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem is yours not mine. You have to welcome for discussion (or) open up a discussion in that article page. I will also wait for one day for your reply. Raghusri (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

re:
Hey I didnt undo your revert hoping that you would continue the discussion.Reply to my response.I see that you are havinhg a problem not me.12:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i will surely continue. Those articles didn't consist about controversies. Where did you assumed good faith??? If you have done then it will show as reverted good faith edit(s) and also you are not using edit summary. Don't think otherwise, i have no problem rather than this. Raghusri (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that you'll continue discussion.

I can quote the sentences from Hey Ram ,Pretty Baby (1978 film) and The Da Vinci Code (film) for you and also there are so many films that made controversies. This film not the first one to do so. Even though they do not have a seperate section, they have mentioned the controversies in the pages.If a seperate section is the problem then I'll remove section heading and add two sentences in the Reception Section.Thank you for pointing out that I didn't use the editsummary, I'll remember to include that in my future contributions.Reply your response Raviteja338 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

O.K. then i want to settle this issue. Please add those to Release section but not in Critical reception section because it's the controversy created after the film had released. Critical reception should only contain film reviews. If anybody else objects please don't revert again, rather than open up a discussion in that Article talk page. That would be better. Thank you for understanding the matter about "Edit summary" issue. Also assume good faith's while reverting rather than plain reversion. Thank you. Have a good day. Raghusri (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll consider your opinion.I am glad that this discussion was not in vain and we both have agreement over this matter. Thank you.Have a good day. Raviteja338 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and suggest
Happy belated new year to you too. Thanks a lot and one suggestion from me please sign your posts with four (or) five tidles. Ex:- (~) (or). Because it will show others that, whom edit(s) were those. Have a nice day. Raghusri (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)