User talk:Thebasicidiot

Welcome!
Hello, Thebasicidiot, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as D satya prakash, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 14:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of D satya prakash


A tag has been placed on D satya prakash 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. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 14:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Rama Rama Re... - Promotional content, personal opinions, unsourced details, etc.
Hi there, re: these changes, I've had to revert the bulk of them for a number of reasons. Thank you. If you have any questions or responses, please feel free to log them below. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Plot summary - If you plan on describing the plot, please describe only what can be seen. Interpretive content, like symbolism or themes should be analysed by secondary sources, not by us. Editorial statements like the following do NOT belong in any article: "The film holds the curiosity of the audience" and "90% of the movie shot on the road makes it an engaging road movie where the their travel is accompanied by few interesting supportive characters" and "give a situational satire comic relief to this edge of the seat screenplay" and "has its affects on the protagonist in this film" and "The film has multiple layers with respect to philosophy of life and death is told in the most simple and entertaining narrative that leaves the audience with loads of food for thought". This isn't objective observation about the plot, this is you making judgments about the quality of the film, the engaging aspects of the film, what you find funny and interesting about the film, and attempting to analyse the subtext of the film. This is basically your review of the film. This has no place here. Wikipedia is not a blog and it's not a forum for promotion, which this text heavily comes across as. Frankly, this looks to me like someone writing about their own film.
 * 2) Overall success section - This is not a standard film article section to begin with (See MOS:FILM) but also came across as promotional, with fluffy statements about how the film "celebrated" something and was in "huge demand". None of these are proper tone for an encyclopedia, and "huge" is not only subjective, but hyperbolic. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, so we're here to present objective content and when we summarise critical or financial performance, we attribute such summaries to specific voices. The section is also entirely unsourced, which is its own problem.
 * 3) Support from Celebrities and Audience section - Firstly, it's unclear why we care what celebrities think. Their opinions don't hold more water than anyone else's opinions. We typically only mention celebrity opinion when providing some noteworthy context. If, for instance, a filmmaker was heavily inspired by a certain film, that might be worth noting, but that typically doesn't occur with semi-recent films. Audience response should typically be attributed to professional analysts. See Manual of Style/Film. We certainly don't use IMDb scores or ratings, or any of that, and we definitely don't use our own personal opinions.
 * 4) The IMDb review from a random audience member doesn't belong in the article. We don't care what random people think. We care what reliable mainstream sources have to say. Also, did you even try to find negative reviews of the film, or were you just trying to add the most flattering quotes? We need to see all sides of the film to properly present a neutral point of view. Surely someone had some criticism.
 * 5) The Awards and accolades section is unsourced. It is at risk of being deleted. Please provide references. Note that since there are tens of thousands of awards out in the world, we only care about established, noteworthy awards. The general rule of thumb is: If the award has no article at Wikipedia, we don't include it in such lists. This is so that we can properly establish if the award is notable. Surely we wouldn't want to puff up a film by talking about how many meaningless awards it won. We only care about the meaningful ones.
 * 6) The Facts and figures section was also unsourced. It has been cut. This looks to me like someone with inside knowledge writing about the film. We're not interested in that. That sort of thing would belong on the official blog for the film. Any such content needs to be sourced, and no, IMDB doesn't qualify as a reliable source as it is user-generated content.