User talk:Shyamravi

WP:TRAILER
Hi there, re: this edit at Bairavaa, though you obviously mean well, film trailers, teasers, television appearances, etc. are not particularly noteworthy as they represent mundane marketing techniques. Please see WP:TRAILER to get an idea of what sort of content belongs in this section. Note also that we are not here to promote the film, and this sort of content just reeks of hype. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Satellite rights
Hi there, re: this edit, satellite rights sales are not considered noteworthy by the Indian cinema task force at Wikipedia. We're not here to track every aspect of a film's finances. See this discussion if you're interested. Additionally, "bagged" is inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. We write in a professional academic tone, which means we don't use casual speech or slang. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

POV editing
Re: these edits, I'm perplexed at the mechanics of cherrypicking reviews in the 2.75/5 to 3/5 star range, but then describing that selection as "positive". How exactly do you interpret middle-of-the-road and less-than-middle-of-the-road reviews as "positive"? Baffling. Anyhow, this violates our policy on neutral point of view. Wikipedia should be written neutrally, not serve as a promotional vehicle for Bairavaa. Aaaand, it's not our place to cherrypick reviews, then attempt to summarize those cherrypicked reviews. It's far too easy for editors to wind up supporting their own biases, whether intentional or not. If I hated the film, all I'd have to do to change "average" to "negative" is find two negative reviews, right? That would be problematic, don't you think, to give editors the latitude to change the entire perspective of critical response simply by cherrypicking reviews.

Regardless, summaries of critical response need to be attributed to specific voices from reliable sources, not pulled from our minds. Per MOS:FILM (our film article bible, which you should be familiar with if you intend to edit film articles): "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." Please avoid editorializing in the future. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

POV editing and satellite rights
Re: this, as previously noted, you are not an aggregator of critical response. Summarising the entirety of critical response of a film as positive without attributing that conclusion to a specific voice is not consistent with our policy on neutrality. Don't add your opinions to articles. And yet again, satellite rights data is of no consequence to the encyclopedia. There is no mention of it at MOS:FILM, and WT:ICTF decided a while back that it served no purpose. Please don't submit this content anymore. Wikipedia is not a law office. We don't care who owns the rights to things. Oh, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mersal_(film)&diff=next&oldid=809506797 really? "Bagged"?] Improper tone for an encyclopedia. Same with "declared as a blockbuster". We don't regurtitate subjective labels as though they have some objective value. Wikipedia isn't a venue for film promotion. Any more of this stuff will result in your editing privileges being interrupted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and geez, I just noticed that you plagiarised content found here. DO NOT COPY CONTENT FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ADD THEM AT WIKIPEDIA. We do not tolerate plagiarism or copyright violations. Consider this your only warning about this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vijay in 2017.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Vijay in 2017.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. Whpq (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Last notice about subjective labels
Re: these, you've again presented subjective content as fact, specifically for the inclusion of meaningless trade declarations like "blockbuster". As previously noted, we do not blindly regurgitate subjective labels especially slang-ridden ones like "blockbuster" or "superhit" or "hit" or "flop" or "epic fail" or "failure" or "disaster" or any of it. We write objectively about content, which means we focus on data, not opinions, and we are sure that we maintain a neutral point of view.

Additionally, your attempt to present a quotation was problematic for several reasons. 1) It was too long. 2) You didn't properly format it as a quotation. 3) You excerpted unconnected pieces without formatting the way excerpts are formatted, i.e. with ellipses to indicate removed sections. See MOS:QUOTATIONS and WP:QUOTE if you need a refresher on how to properly format quotations.

Since you have not responded to previous notices, I have no idea whether or not you understand why these issues are problematic. If you present any more subjective content as facts or use improper tone, your editing privileges will be interrupted to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Your addition to Mersal (film) 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. ''Please don't copy entire sections directly from the source, that's a copyright violation. You need to summarize the material, making sure to not keep the overly promotional tone often found in articles like you copied from. Basically, a simple mention of the gross from the region is all that's needed. See WP:PARAPHRASE for some helpful suggestion on avoiding copyright violations, including the close paraphrase. Please be more careful. '' Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE stop copy/pasting such extensive review quotes from various review sites as you did here. This sort of copying constitutes a copyright violation. We can not accept such lengthy copying from such sources. If you persist in doing this, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. If you have questions, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add copious quantities of copyrighted text to Wikipedia as you did with these edits. This is your final warning. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. 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:.

Shyamravi, you were recently warned about using copyrighted material on Wikipedia, yet you have continued to copy and paste copyrighted material from other websites. Copying material this way is illegal in most places and is strictly not allowed on Wikipedia, and because you did not stop after this was explained to you your editing privileges have been revoked and your account is blocked from editing. You will not be allowed to edit until we are confident that you will not continue adding content that is not yours. Please read Copying text from other sources, and feel free to ask questions on this page if you like. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)