User talk:Cyphoidbomb

User: Vjmlhds

Vjmlhds has been changing the Antenna TV program page in the way I set it up previously. This person and I have been exchanging changes on the Antenna TV page back in January. Just recently, this person changed the entire thing as if he or she owns and controls the Antenna TV page. Please have this person stop making the changes his or her way on the Antenna TV program page. Wikipedia pages are meant for everyone to contribute. With Vjmlhds' makeover changes, it takes away the debut of the television series and the upcoming shows.

Vjmlhds wants to organized the Antenna TV page his or her way; and I only edit the Antenna TV page where the person who started, created and the Wikipedia person worked very hard making the Antenna TV page well-organized.

It is not fair for me and to the person for the hard work and to the other Wikipedia people for the corrections and contributing by adding information to the Antenna TV program page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbears22 (talk • contribs)

About my edit from "Ghilli" from "5rtfgvb"

I'm sorry, but it must have offended you when I called a Tamil movie "Ghilli" a "blockbuster" but it is actually true because many websites call it a "Blockbuster" since it fared very well. I must have hurt you but in no way did I mean say that "Ghilli" is better than "Okkadu". I was just stating facts and apparently I see that you like tollywood so you won't accept the fact that "Ghilli" did better at the Box office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5rtfgvb (talk • contribs)

Vettah

Edits done in the plot is exact details. Confusion could be there, it is described in the edit summary. Other details you have cited were simple reverts since the plot revert was not logical. The plot element: Sreebala doesn't investigate the missing actress and her missing colleagues case, She investigates along with her colleague Silas on the missing actress case. The court clerk mention was for added clarity. If you understand what is written and if you are interested make those changes yourself. Changes made by MarnetteD was also suspicious. What made me tick is these (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Could_Possibly_Go_Wrong%3F&diff=prev&oldid=715287809 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Oz&diff=prev&oldid=715127702). I thought a similar attempt for vandalism is done just like Cartawagna. 117.241.20.141 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

117.241.20.141 I'm not sure how many times you're going to need to hear this, but I'll say it again: "The story revolves around Commissioner Sreebala IPS (Manju Warrier) who investigates a missing person case of an actress, along with her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith)." is poor English. The other version "The story revolves around Commissioner Sreebala IPS (Manju Warrier) who investigates a case of an actress who, along with her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith), has gone missing" seems to say the same thing in cleaner English. If you're saying that the new version is not correct, that can be attributed entirely to the first version being poorly written, and I can see where there might be ambiguities. The talk page is always the best place to bring this up. Restoring problematic content doesn't make anything clearer.

MarnetteD is not a vandal. They're a respected editor with 109,000 edits to their name. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I was wrong about MarnetteD the Frank Oz edit looked bad without any links didn't realize it was an revert. Just for better understanding how would you put "The story revolves around Commissioner Sreebala IPS (Manju Warrier) who investigates a case of an actress who, along with her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith), has gone missing" in other words. Does that sentence reflect

• (Sreebala+Silas Abraham) -> investigates -> (Missing Actress case) or
• (Sreebala) -> investigates -> (Missing [Actress+Silas Abraham] case)

I also like to more about https://tools.wmflabs.org/?list what all tools are available, is it a wikipedia project. Just a small intro or links, thanks in advance.

117.241.21.51 (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If time allows a response would allow us both be past this and you can archive it.117.215.195.93 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

117.241.21.51, I don't know why you didn't open a discussion on the Vettah talk page, but I have done that for you. If you can answer the questions posed, we can resolve the grammar issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You, Can you provide a simple guide to tools.wmflabs.org.117.213.20.34 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a guide to the tools at wmflabs.org, sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Any links ? or how did you find this one https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=MarnetteD&project=en.wikipedia.org, any pointers.117.213.20.34 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know what you are asking. Links for various tools can be found at various places across the project, depending on where they are needed. The tool that I linked can be found at the bottom of every regular user's contribution page. (It cannot be found on IP contribution pages) Look for "Edit count". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

When you get a chance....

Hello Cyphoidbomb, When you get a chance, can you please see this section on Angus' talkpage? Thanks much, Tankytoon (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

User:Madhumira Roy Banerjee seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Ishq Hawa Mein. Can't find the investigation page anywhere. - Managerarc™ ^talk 15:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Managerarc, nor can I. I think Ponyo may have gone rogue on this. There's some info in her talk page archives User talk:Ponyo/Archive 29, User talk:Ponyo/Archive 30. Some of the edit summaries look similar. Ponyo, you wanna take a gander? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup, they're  Confirmed to Ishq Hawa Mein. Clean-up on Aisle 2!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Lehmber Hussainpuri

Hello Cyphoidbomb. I was hoping you might be able to add the Lehmber Hussainpuri article to your watchlist. It has slowly devolved into a fanpage full of promotional language and puffery, in gross violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. I have redacted the much of the offensive content, but would appreciate a second set of eyes to review my changes, as well as future edits. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yamaguchi先生, Done! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. May I ask you to add one more to your watchlist, Madhuri Dixit? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yamaguchi先生, that one's already on my watchlist. I'll try to remember to look at it occasionally, though... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again Cyphoidbomb. At your convenience, will you please review my most recent adjustments and redactions: [1] I believe there are still issues with puffery and promotional language to be resolved, would WP:BLP/N be the best location to highlight these concerns? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yamaguchi先生, sorry for the delay in response--I didn't have time to think about this yesterday. The changes look good with me, and yeah, I suppose BLP/N would be the best venue. I know that the Indian cinema task force is a ghost town, and the Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics doesn't seem to have time to focus on this sort of stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ribbon Salminen reverting edits

Ribbon has been reverting pretty much all of my edits like a fuking stalker, he even started to make insults on me and if I fuking reply him back you'll get on my ass and block me, so for once in my life I'll be a pussy and snitch so you can take action to that idiot. heres the insult. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaos_(professional_wrestling)&action=history— Preceding unsigned comment added by SethAdam99 (talk • contribs)

SethAdam99, I must speak frankly: I'm not sure what you expect to come of this. You've gone out of your way to attract negative attention like pretending to be an administrator to your pro Hitler nonsense and generally hostile user page content. It's no surprise that an established editor (who has 105,000+ edits here and thus is very experienced) might consider you to be here for disruptive reasons and is making sure that your edits conform with our established policies and guidelines. If you're not comfortable with the scrutiny, perhaps you should reconsider the image you are portraying. It's further troubling that your comments here couldn't be made without calling Ribbon an idiot or without the gratuitous cursing. Wikipedia is a community project and not everybody works well with other people. If this describes you, you may consider a different hobby since it will be very difficult to edit constructively with others if you have trouble communicating politely or adhering to basic guideines. I don't see anything actionable against Ribbon. Asking someone if they pulled a fact out of their ass doesn't violate WP:CIVIL, in my opinion. Calling someone an idiot, however, does. Please beware the boomerang. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am a pro hitler, and consider myself an admin here besides that i really don't give a shit no more because you're just basically kissing ribbon's ass.. SethAdam99 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You're entitled to your misguided and baseless opinions. When you present evidence that the user has violated a core policy, then we'll talk. Getting bent out of shape that he said "ass" or that he suggested you pulled information out of thin air because it was unsourced just doesn't warrant administrative intervention. Good luck with your pro-Hitler lifestyle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've calm down and I apologize for insulting you and using profanity, I know being foul mouthed will not get me anywhere and I would like to start fresh on wikipedia. Thank you for making me understand that I was wrong and I will stop acting like a jackass. SethAdam99 (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

SethAdam99, I certainly appreciate your apology, and I expect that being less antagonistic should make your experience better around here. Good luck, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

/* Plagiarism */

Yes while we are all aware that plagiarism is academically unethical, it is however advisable to read up the meaning of plagiarism. Something that "looks copied" or "appeared to be copied" need not necessarily be copied. The plot summary on Theri (film) and the one on IMDb were both reviewed and they were clearly not one and the same. It does not matter now that the plot has been written. However, it is recommended that there be an actual reason for removal of content rather than just personal opinions or whims and a warning of suspension of editorial privileges. Thanks. User:Jamf21 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

BH in User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ

I see that you have listed Bollywood Hungama under reliable sources in your FAQ sheet. You should mention in notes somewhere which sections of BH are considered RS. Or is whole website RS? I assume the news section is considered RS as it is authored by their staff or usually by some notable film critic. example: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/2651027/Ashutosh-Gowariker-files-complaint-against-union-members-for-disrupting-shoot
But are film pages example http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/cast/id/539181 or biography pages like http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/index/id/325 also considered RS? They are pretty much like IMDb. I remember @SpacemanSpiff: is also of the same opinion; that these sub-pages are similar to IMDb; unless he has changed that thought now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't changed my opinion, but a lot of crap reg Indian film is now acceptable at WP:AfD and I really don't have any time to work on film articles so I've just moved away from the space. That said, The Times of India is about as bad as some of these as they also do a lot of forumy posts under their entertainment section. I think we have to take into account that many Indian newspapers have gone to the stage of selling "news space" on regional and subject supplements. e.g. see Saksham - everyone is capable, the The Tribune (Chandigarh) which is a good newspaper, publishes stuff under this "Gyan Zone" section which is just PR stuff. —SpacemanSpiff 12:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

More than just being "reliable" in general one needs to check how independent they are. Behindwoods.com was a promotional partner of Enthiran and yet more than 20 articles of this website have been used as reference in this FA. This COI source has been used to call the film "Indian cinema's pinnacle of evolution". In my last comment here you would see how Radio Mirchi, a subsidiary of the The Times Group, was a media partner of the film in question and it was being used to rank one of the film's song on a chart.
Your FAQs cannot address this COI problem directly as they would change case to case. But maybe you can write a note about it in there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, SpacemanSpiff, I'm very flexible on how the ICTF FAQ should be filled out. I started putting it together to help the ICTF, but that place is a ghost town these days. As you both know, sourcing is a miserable mess, and it's an uphill battle trying to prune all the piece-of-shit cookie-cutter content scraping blogs from articles as well as trying to keep the paid editors honest. Any help that either of you could contribute to the FAQ would be immensely helpful. My preference is that some form of discussion take place because I don't want one or a few editors to be the sole arbiters of what is reliable vs. what is unreliable. I will say that I've been tempted on more than one occasion to just start slapping some of these poor references in the spam blacklist, (Like nowrunning.com per Spiff's suggestion) but without strong feedback and some examples, I just can't do that with a good conscience. Spiff, you do it! Spiff, per your point about TOI, I found some real-world examples of a few allegedly reliable sources biting from Wikipedia without attribution. If either of you are curious, the details are here. They basically used Wikipdia's summary of Raees in their own articles, down to Kailash's specific wording. Shameful. Anyhow, I could rant for days about this. We need more help in Indian cinema, that's all I know. I don't even watch these films. I'm just helping out because the industry is corrupt as hell and the corruption is trickling into Wikipedia through the paid sock assholes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sitush has compiled something like this for other areas of Indic stuff, see User:Sitush/Indic publications of dubious merit for example. I think he had one on mirrors, forks and stuff too, so that may be beneficial to you. I don't have the time for these cinema articles right now Cyphoid, there's far too many fanboys, PR agents etc who would make me waste my time, and I'm already running way behind on my Indo-Anglian literature article creation (something that should be covered in an encyclopaedia, though our editing population prefers to know how much cleavage someone showed in a particular film!) I will add to your list though, there's a few pieces that I think I could address. —SpacemanSpiff 05:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @SpacemanSpiff: on how useless it is to invest time on this genre of articles.
Btw, taking a slight detour, do we have any provision maybe a template or such to post on talk pages of articles that would state if the subject article is considered RS or not? Like maybe make a template and post it on Talk:The Times of India giving links of various discussions that have been throughout wiki and concluding on its reliability nature. This would be helpful on newspapers, journals, books, websites and such articles. It may be used on biography articles too; like put a note on Talk:James Tod that he is not considered RS; although its mentioned in the article which could go unnoticed. Its difficult and boring to look for RSN archives and other talk page posts to check if any discussion of this sort has ever been made. Many sources get disqualified in peer reviews or featured review processes. Such template or anything on the top of talk page would be helpful. Should this go to WP:VPI? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I would be against adding anything to talk pages of articles themselves, but a section could be added on WP:PUS for Indian film/TV in particular and that could be used to weed out some of the crap. Take even the case of an FA like Priyanka Chopra, there are some really dicey hagiographic sources used. —SpacemanSpiff 05:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:2017 television seasons

Category:2017 television seasons has been created twice this year already, and it's only April. As you are aware, the category shouldn't be populated until at least January 1, 2017. I've emptied it (again) and tagged it with {{db-catempty}} (again) but this is going to happen over and over, as it does every year. Could I impose on you to put on your admin hat and create protect the cat until January 1, 2017 to save us all a lot of wasted time? Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aussie, sorry for the delayed response--the ever-exciting world of Indian cinema articles is keeping me busy lately. Oddly enough I haven't done a whole lot in the way of cat additions, so I'm not as sharp as I could be there and I need a bit of clarification: Why shouldn't the cat be created until Jan 1? If we knew in mid-2016 that an episode was going to air September 1, 2017, the article wouldn't belong in that cat? I'm a touch confused because Category:2018 films and similar exists. I guess the short question is: is there a guideline/discussion on this? I'm happy to do it, I would just prefer to get my background info up to speed first. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I know what being busy is like. My daughter was supposed to be in Perth, on the other side of the country, until September, and I was getting ready to ship a spare car over to her so she didn't have to buy one to drive around for 5 months. Yesterday she rang me and said she was coming home "today" and asked me to pick her up from Sydney airport, which is over 100 miles away, so I've just returned from a 270 mile round trip. Anyway ... We did discuss the issue of these categories at WT:TV in November 2014. These categories are not for upcoming seasons, they're for seasons that have already aired (note past tense) at least one episode in the current year. Since 2017 won't be the current year for 9 months, Category:2017 television seasons can't be populated until January 1, when episodes star airing in 2017. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb

I am actually new at this because I do not normally know how to function these types of symbols and I do not use Wikipedia that much.

To make it clear and concise since you still do not understand my case, on the List of Antenna TV shows' Wikipedia page, the information was very accurate previously with its debut dates. With Vjmlhds' opinion, this person felt that it is not necessary put in the dates of its debut per show on the Antenna TV page. I understand this person wants to make it simple, but the way we had it previously was well organized. Again, Wikipedia pages are meant for everyone to contribute, but not for a person who takes control the entire page back and forth. If there is something wrong with the page or if the information is incorrect, we can make the changes and correct the mistakes.

It is just that when I was working on the Qubo page, there were too much false information without any sources available so therefore people had to contribute to correct and redo the entire page with the correct information.

I am here on Wikipedia to contribute and update information.

Yes, we all have our own opinions in editing Wikipedia sources.

Cbears22 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced content

I reported Easy4me (talk · contribs) to AIV for making repeated unsourced edits to film articles: [2]. However, it was declined as stale (one of the more frustrating reasons to have a report declined): [3]. Easy4me has already had several level 4 warnings, including one for this month: [4]. Attempting to reason with him, I warned him for adding unsourced budgets twice in the past day or so: [5], [6]. He continued adding a large number of unsourced budgets (copied from my AIV report): [7], [8], [9] (budget was sourced as $3 million elsewhere in article), [10], [11], [12], [13]. Can you please block him? Or at least give him a super-final-I'm-not-kidding warning? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you never seen the many articles with unsourced budgets, even though they can be found on either IMDb, Box Office Mojo, or The Numbers? Easy4me (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)