User talk:Vijaysuriya

August 2016
Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Diffs: We don't use weighted, fluffy, subjective terms to describe things at Wikipedia. "Humongous" is a hyperbolic, subjective idea that has no tangible value. We don't describe films as "blockbusters" or "super hits" or "failures" or "flops" or "disasters", we use neutral wording and we support those summaries with references from reliable published sources. Opinions that we pull out of our own heads do not belong in articles. '' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Khaleja. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''Diff: Who decided the film received "mixed" reviews? You? Summaries of a film's critical response should be directly attributed to specific voices. We don't pick a handful of reviews then summarize those cherrypicked reviews as we see fit.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Improperly sourced edits
Hi there, re: this edit, Web2look is not a valid source per WP:RS and WP:UGC. We only care what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about anything, not random blogs. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Final warning
Despite my other notes to you on this, you still seem to have trouble understanding what's required of you at Wikipedia. Any content you submit must be supported by reliable published soures with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. In these edits, you used Galaxyreporter.com as a reference. GalaxyReporter is a blog. Blogs are not sufficient per WP:UGC. You made a statement that "The film received highly positive critical acclaim". "Highly positive" is hyperbole that is widely shunned by WikiProject Television. I have already warned you about this. We present content from a neutral point of view. The summary also is not supported by a reliable source. Your use of http://asdlk.info/box-office-collection-tamil-movies-2016/ is problematic because it is not a reliable published source like a newspaper, magazine, or other known authority. The website also does not appear to resolve.

Oh, and the claim that the film "became one of the highest grossing film of the year" is nonsensical, because the world is a huge place. You no doubt meant Indian film, or "Indian Tamil-language" film, but no matter how you slice it, it's problematic.

So, considering you keep making the same mistakes, and you haven't asked any questions that would help anyone to better explain the issue, I can only assume you don't understand, or that you are deliberately trying to inflate the film. Neither situation is tolerable. If you use another bad source again, or use language that isn't neutral in tone, I will have to interrupt your editing privileges to protect the encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)