Jump to content

User talk:Cyphoidbomb: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rockdwane (talk | contribs)
348 edits
New talk section: about
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 230: Line 230:


Hi! Cyphoidbomb will reply here for a minute! --[[Special:Contributions/119.63.142.8|119.63.142.8]] ([[User talk:119.63.142.8|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Cyphoidbomb will reply here for a minute! --[[Special:Contributions/119.63.142.8|119.63.142.8]] ([[User talk:119.63.142.8|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

== about ==

Sorry! i didnt get, actually i came to know that if it is lengthy then we should copy and paste bt not everything. Thats what i did. Bcz as i observed even so many senior editors did same what i did now, thats all. Thats y i was asking u always that if i make any mistakes plz let me know that. Bt now u r suddenly telling like this. See recently i got appreciated by 'DLP bot'. Bt u r scolding me about copy paste. Extreamly tell me, what should i do now? [[User:Rockdwane|Rockdwane]] ([[User talk:Rockdwane|talk]]) 16:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:36, 28 March 2016

Happy Tree Friends - Broadcast & Owned (reverted my Information)

Hi, My name is Drajat Achmad Imransyah or Imran from Indonesia. By The Way, Happy Tree Friends is not broadcast in National TV Station Indosiar because KPI (Indonesian Broadcasting Commission) can't allow any violence cartoon/anime in Television. And where do you got a information about Happy Tree Friends owned by Surya Citra Media? That is a HOAX. Thank You. imranfreak (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2015 (GMT+8)

Prem ratan dhan payo

Sir please add official teaser poster in prem ratan dhan payo article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslishiva (talk • contribs)

Thankyou for pointing out

I have edited with proper reference and there is no reference to the numbers from Afghanistan as the kho people mainly reside in Pakistan. Thankyou and can you please check the numbers nowKho people. Also if its still wrong can you please correct them accordingly . thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Happy Holidays!


Favre1fan93 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dilwale

"Second highest-grossing film to star a guy with a beard."

Okay, that was genuinely funny. No, I liked it a lot.

Aah, the gift. You know you always had it. Just speak a word and people start laughing. The gift to make people laugh. So far, you've been a successful joker with your stupid summaries and talks. I hope you can keep up the good work. Kudos!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillShowU (talk • contribs)

BFlatley

Sigh...just come off his 2-month block and here we go again... Betty Logan (talk)

PhysicsScientist

Hai, I arranged cast as per credits in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsScientist (talk • contribs)

regarding on block

Hi! am rahul aka (rockdwane). My question is y u people are blocking id's inspite of giving proper reliable source to wikipedia. I dont know where i did mistake. Its my new id, bt i dont like to block again by u. Could u suggest me? how to edit with reliable sources, bcz i want to become a good wikipedian thats all. I hope u answer my question, thanking u.... Rockdwane (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See if i make any mistake leave me one msg before blocking. And tell me that where i did mistake. I hope u able to understand. C u again bye,, i am waiting for ur instant anwser., Rockdwane (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rockdwane, you haven't given me enough information to be able to answer you properly. Which account did you previously use? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do you have an easy way to see when the links were added to an article? In the process of removing the punjabigrooves.com spam I came across a few other domains, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? target=*.punjabiportal.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch punjabiportal.com (LinkSearch linked)], cinepubjab.com, and cinemapunjabi.com but I have no easy way of seeing if the links are actively being added aside from going through all those page histories. There's also this movie ticket selling website Thanks. Elaenia (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elaenia, oh dear god--it never ends!! Thanks for cleaning up a lot of those punjabigrooves links. It was nice seeing far fewer of them when I did my batch. To answer your question, I'm not too familiar with all the anti-spam tools yet. Just started dipping my toe in it recently, but Beetstra was very friendly to me the last time I hounded him for information, so he might be able to help us both out with info. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb If you report your links to WT:WPSPAM or to the Spam-blacklist, and use a {{LinkSummary}} with the domain in your post (without 'http://' and 'www.' at the start, and stopping at the '.com' or other TLD), COIBot will pick up that edit, and save a report after some time. That report is linked from the template you added in that post, and lists details on the domain, and when it was added (it pulls from an 'own' database, created by m:User:LiWa3 (which is currently lagging due to someone running a high-speed bot cross-wiki, resulting in a large number of edits per minute to parse).
To refresh the post, use User:COIBot/Poke (only for users who have been granted use, to avoid abuse). Just add the LinkSummary-template with the domain to that list (clear it in a separate edit if it is already there) every time you need a fresh report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll poke them all five now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock of User:Sage of the Six Paths?

An IPv6 account has been restoring the same copyvio plot summaries to List of Durarara!!×2 episodes which very minor changes to the wording.[1][2] Could this this look like a sock of User:Sage of the Six Paths to you? I've given the IP a copyvio warning after the second edit.[3] If you believe that this is a sock, do you think the page should receive some form of protection? —Farix (t | c) 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheFarix - I'll take a look. I'm pretty sure that he was editing both while logged in and while logged out at List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes. I remember having some problems with unsourced future dates coming from IPs, then after I semi-ed the page, he suddenly shows up with his autoconfirmed account. Some of the IPs were this one and this one. They geolocate to New Jersey. The IPv6 you are complaining about in those edits also geolocates to New Jersey, which is no coincidence. Ridiculous. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bef3481(2)

Cyphoid, would you do me a favor? Would you mind reviewing the edit history of List of Person of Interest episodes for the last 36 hours or so and look at the edits by User:Bef3481(2)? There's also some discussion on the talk page. I'm trying to decide if it needs to go to AN3. Farvefan and I have tried to explain reliable sourcing and verifiability, not to mention policies governing Twitter to him, but he just keeps insisting his edits are reliable. Instead, as seems to be the way of it these days, he's claiming that we are singling him out (utter nonsense), etc. Can no one handle being edited maturely these days? Anyway, he is well past 3RR, but I'm not sure it will stand up at 3RR given his odd editing patterns -- you'll see what I mean. Any insight will help. Grazie! --Drmargi (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helping hand. Hopefully, he'll get the picture and step back from the "I am right... " posture, and the fan site approach. --Drmargi (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Bef3481

Hello, Cyphoid. Thank you so much for your helpful message on my talk page! I'm not used to being treated so kindly! I will, indeed solicit your advice when needed, as I have, and although it is frustrating to see people reverting your edits based on opinion, condescension and ego trips. You are very right though, edit warring is not the answer... Thank you very much for not suspending my editing privileges. It seems to be the way these days, when people have an air of control and false sense of power they simply cannot stand to be wrong, all facts aside; and when someone doesn't know the rules properly due to lack of experience (or has never had the need to make use of an article's talk page) they are labeled as disruptive (utter nonsense), etc. There is not a thing I can do about that though; one is powerless over everything in life except their own actions/reactions. Can no one treat one an other like an equal anymore? I tried to be peaceful but many users (your company excluded) throughout my time on Wikipedia have proven to me that being nice gets you nowhere, fast. I was bullied a lot on my other account when I was new (had to create another because my computer shut down from a power outage while I was changing my Wiki password) At least that has been my experience ever since I helped to create the Criminal Minds (season 11) page last year. I'm a university student and haven't had the time to learn the ropes of verifiability; I simply see what is acceptable in other edits, and try to apply those same parameters to my own edits. But this experience has taught me that a little time spent learning the rules can go quite a long way, and if I know the rules well enough to edit within the criteria of verifiability, I won't have to interact with hostile users. Once again, thank you so much for your kindness, Cyphoid. You are truly a classy breath of fresh air, and I'll take your advice to heart. Sincerely and with much gratitude, Brendan. Bef3481(2) (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bef3481(2) - I'm sure that this will bring you no satisfaction, but I have a great deal of respect for both Drmargi and FavreFan1. They are both here to do what's right by the community, they are knowledgeable and they are good resources. When I see them edit, I know I don't have to scrutinize them because I trust them to make strong decisions. Maybe when the heat dies down a little you might notice some of that. :) I suppose my point is to suggest a minor change of perspective. It's tough when you're new to an established community--maybe going in with the attitude of wanting to learn the ropes may empower other editors to want to be the good guy and help you out. That's what worked for me back when I started here. Getting into heated, contentious debates wasn't the right approach for me, and I realized that in any setting, there are always people who know more than I do. Being flexible and letting others lead is sometimes a good approach when you're learning about a new culture. Anyhow, lecture over. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TollySpice

This user's contributions have been mostly including links from TollySpice, a non reliable source, to major Telugu film articles. What do you think of this? Any suggestions? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanjandhyala - Thanks for the heads-up. I noticed him and warned him not to keep spamming articles, and it looks like he continued after my warning, so I've indeffed him. If you notice this domain pop up again, please let me know, or you can report it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else here is doing the same thing what Rohith did. That is something suspicious, as this account was created a day after Rohith was blocked by you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes

Hello. Please remove the page protection to List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes. The page is now not getting edited because no one can edit it. You only put the page protection on because I edited it. You can't do that unless it is constant vandalism. You said this was vandalism. I provided reliable sources. Just because I'm an anonymous user, doesn't mean I'm vandalizing pages. I can edit List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes with reliable content and provide sources. Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit so you can't really go round blocking everyone from editing this page just because I edited it with a reliable source. You said, when you put the page protection up, "This page has been protected to prevent vandalism. Sock puppetry of Sponge58." Me putting sources in, is NOT vandalism. It is reliable editing. 90.215.34.10 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

90.215.34.10 - Are you the editor behind the Sponge58 account? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, Hello. Yes, I shall admit that I am the editor behind Sponge58. I have learnt my lesson from that and from now on, I am only going to edit articles with correct information accompanied with a reliable source if needed. I am a bit confused as to why you put a page protection on List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes only a little while after I made a new edit WITH a reliable source. That seems very strange to me. Adding sources is not vandalism and you clearly stated that you're protecting the page due to vandalism. 5.64.30.249 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5.64.30.249 - I don't understand what you are confused about. The article was protected to prevent you, Jake Uniacke, from editing it. You, who was also behind the accounts Cartman810, and Sponge58, are not welcome to edit at Wikipedia so long as you have a blocked account. It's not permanent, but it's indefinite. You were blocked indefinitely for disruptive behavior like copyright violations (which you continued as Sponge58 even after the Cartman810 account was blocked for this--so you obviously didn't learn your lesson after the first block). Your creation of useless self-promoting articles about your amateur projects also factored into the Sponge58 block. You've also been blocked for sockpuppetry, i.e. the misuse of multiple accounts to evade previous blocks, like Cartman443, Cartman587, Sponge58, and you are currently engaged in sockpuppetry by editing as an anonymous IP user. Your only remedy is to request that the Cartman810 account be unblocked, but considering you are still engaging in sockpuppetry, apparently with no comprehension that what you're doing goes against Wikipedia policies and is dishonest, it's going to be a hard-sell. Note also that any edit made by you while you are blocked can be reverted on sight by any editor without regard for whether it was constructive of not. If you're going to waste other editors' time, be prepared to have your own time wasted. Life is short. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, I'm not wasting other users time. I'm simply making a statement about a pointless page protection. Why should I be prevented from editing? List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes is a current active article that is no longer being edited because I'm usually the one who constructively edits it. Without me, some random troll could add false information just like a previous anonymous IP user who kept putting 'Joel Chigwende' as the writer for every episode that is currently on the list. I have learnt my lesson from the block so you can't tell me what I have and what I haven't learnt. Constructive edits are needed in articles and without me, this specific article is no longer being edited. And then people moan for articles not being edited. You can tell them why - they won't care. They'll want the article to be edited so they can see what each episode is about. I am sorry for any inconvenience I have caused. But you have caused great inconvenience towards me and I don't appreciate it. 5.64.30.249 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5.64.30.249 - I've explained in sufficient detail why the page is protected, and why you aren't currently welcome to edit here, and what your prospective remedies are. You continue to make edits at Wikipedia [4][5] in spite of not currently being welcome to do so. This constitutes sockpuppetry and demonstrates that no, in fact, you do not understand Wikipedia policies or why you've been blocked in the past. It also demonstrates that you don't care what the rules are. This is a community encyclopedia, not the Jake Uniacke show. Either abide by the rules or go play somewhere else. In the interim, and I'll only explain this one last time, your remedy is to request an unblock via the Cartman810 account, where you will need to convince a reviewing admin that you understand why you were blocked, and you will need to provide assurance that you will not make the same mistakes again. However, considering you're still engaged in sockpuppetry, it's doubtful you'll be unblocked any time soon. You might consider the standard offer instead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, okay. I understand now. But how can I abide by the rules if you're not giving me the chance to do so? I'm not trying to have a go at you but I would like to know why you're telling me to abide by the rules but yet you're not giving me the chance. I am very sorry for what I have done. Yes I do know this is a community encyclopedia and that's what I am treating it as - I know damn well this isn't about me. I never said it was, so please don't get cocky to me because it doesn't work. I will no longer continue to pester you about this matter. 5.64.30.249 (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5.64.30.249 - Who's not giving you a chance? I told you weeks ago to request an unblock at Cartman810, which you chose not to do. Since then, you've continued editing without permission to do so. Those are decisions you made, not me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monster High: Escape from Skull Shores discussion

I am inviting you to take part in this discussion to determine the fate of Monster High: Escape from Skull Shores. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

regarding on editing

Sorry, actually it was written as "With the sequel having materialised this year, the film will now go on floors from March 24." they had written like this. that is what i did edit and i edited by changing some appropriate words...is it not correct formate "film will go now on floors from march 24,"? Rockdwane (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdwane - No. "Go on floors" is slang. It's not proper English. "The film is scheduled to begin production on 24 March" would be the correct way to say it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One movie is missed in filmography. How should i add that movie name in to that filmography?. should I submitt any reliable sourcess even in to filmography to add that film name? Rockdwane (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the sock

After Jo Bieson, User:Sm Sangeeth Sm77 has come out with another sock User:DuplixD (not linking this). I knew he would return, look what I had found - log. --Charles Turing (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Turing - Good catch! Nice eagle-eye you got there. I'll take care of it from here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Turing - Filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DuplixD. Two things: If you want to link to a user page without notifying the user, you can use {{noping}} like {{noping|Charles Turing}}. And, if you discover more socks of his, you are free to revert them on sight per WP:REVERTBAN. These reversions are exempt from WP:3RR. That's at your own discretion, though. If you think the edit improved something, you're not required to revert it. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Etel

Hi, Cyphoidbomb! Could you please help me out? Some IP has been changing British/English actor Alex Etel's birth year. His official website states he was born in 1994, not 1992. --ACase0000 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACase0000 - I've given him a final warning. If he makes any more unsourced numerical changes, please let me know and I'll block him. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will! Thank you! --ACase0000 (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Best Friends Whenever#Episode count

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Best Friends Whenever#Episode count. Here we go again. I know you have fun with these, so figured I'd invite ya to the discussion. :) Amaury (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

regarding on creating page

I would like create pages. Could u plz help me that how should i create the pages? Rockdwane (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdwane - The best way for new users to do this is through the articles for creation process. This will give you time to build an article and properly establish a subject's notability (very important!) before the article goes live, with other Wikipedians giving you feedback along the way. If you take shortcuts through article creation, the odds that the article will be deleted are quite high. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complain about a habitual offender

Sir, I would like to make a complain about User talk : ARNAB22. He has a history of making unsourced edits on Wikipedia, and as I have found from his Talk page, you have also severely warned him in the past. Today, about 30 minutes ago, I had given him a warning and now I find that he has simply ignored it and also deleted it from his Talk page. U can find my warning from the history of his Talk page. Plz read the warning that I had given him to understand the type of unsourced edits that he makes. I request you to block this user and undo all his previous edits. Thanks. 101.57.14.240 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 101.57.14.240, looking at the user's contribution history, the last time he edited the Bollywood article was over a month ago, so I don't know what purpose blocking him would serve. Blocks are intended to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, not to be used as punishment. Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. When this happens, it's widely considered proof that they have read and understand the warning. What I'd recommend is this: If you think the SRK photo is unnecessary, remove it, explain briefly in your edit summary, then open a discussion on the article's talk page as a backup. "In this edit I removed the image of SRK because of X, Y and Z" If he were to return to the Bollywood article and restore the image without discussion, that would be disruptive, because you've given him two opportunities (on his talk page, and on the article's talk page) to express his position. Barring that, however, there's little I can or should do at present. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bef, again.

Cyphoid, Bef's latest antics with titles from unverified Twitter accounts at List of Person of Interest episodes lead to the following edit to his sandbox [[6]], and it's very troubling edit summary. I'm not sure what policy might come into play, but it's disturbing enough to draw your attention to it. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was beautifully handled, and by that I mean the message on his talk page. It's a template for how to lay down the law but be positive at the same time! --Drmargi (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmargi - Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for unblocking me, Cyphoid. And as far as Favrefan and User:Drmargi, I understand if you would rather not interact with me, but I do owe you an apology, big time. I am very sorry to you for my words, even though I never intended for them to be seen. I feel much like Sulaiman Khan, the CEO who was "doxed" in POI episode 4-19, all the private, nasty emails he sent had been made public by Samaritan... The words I used were never intended for either of you to see; so this is much like you having read my mind at one of its darkest moments. However you feel about me is your business, but I would like you both to know that I didn't mean what I said. My venting which was stupidly assumed to be forever private, does not represent my true feelings and it was to psych myself up to speak respectfully in one of the only ways I know how. You were right to report it. I hope you can accept my sincerest apology; if not, I understand if you'd prefer to keep your interaction with me to a bare minimum. Thanks again to Cyphoid for making me aware that my sandbox is not an infinitely private black box, and, in its entirety, can not only be seen by Administrators, but by other users. You are truly a proven mediator, Cyphoid; it is no wonder you're an Admin of this great site! Bef3481(2) (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bef3481(2) - I hope things calm down for you. Please note my comments earlier. Drmargi and Favre1fan93 are respected editors who are genuinely here to help, not to cause you grief. If you can get past this hiccup, I think you'll find that they are very easy to get along with. I hope anyway. Sometimes negative stuff like this has a way of lingering, but I hope not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for that advice, Cyphoid. I hope so, too. I am, believe it or not, an easy-going person, but sometimes a bit of persecution complex can get the better of me. I'd like nothing more than to get along with every other editor. If possible, I'd like to continue on (with respect to the editors Drmargi and Favrefan) as if this never happened. Yes, it is unrealistic; if I were them I'd be pretty angry with (and probably more than a bit disturbed) by me. Anyhow, my behavior will have changed, but they have no obligation to forgive me so I won't get my hopes up; I'll just make sure my behavior is dignified and of the Wikipedia standard. :) My goal is the same as theirs: to become a respected editor who is genuinely here to help make pages more accurate, within the parameters of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; the problem is that I need to get over my gigantic ego and stop lashing out when corrected/reverted and thinking I'm being personally attacked when, in fact, I'm merely being corrected by a user who has far more editing experience than myself! Definitely something to work on. I was wondering, may I delete the block from my talk page, if not than at least may I delete the disgusting words of mine that were quoted to make the blocking argument? It's not to undermine you in any way, I just don't want those words to be associated with me in social media (since my account is tangentially associated with my Twitter account thanks to previous reckless editing). I was told by Drmargi that I cannot delete the post of another editor on my page, especially an admin, a statement with which I definitely agree! However, I also saw that you told someone they are allowed to delete a warning (don't know if it applies to blocks and the quotes used to support them) on their talk page as long as the warning has been heeded and action has been taken to ensure the lesson has been learned. Is there a way I can get those barbaric words off of my talk page without breaking the rules? If not, its fine; I deserve it, but if possible, I'd love to know a way. Thanks again for giving me a second chance, --Brendan F. Bef3481(2) (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about Pooja gandhi wikipedia

Hello! its me Rockdwane. I want to clarify about pooja gandhi wikipedia... She was facing insufficient reliable sources in her article, now i am given reliable sources her up to 99%. i think that i provided almost currect and genuine sources. If i made any mistake in that. Mistakes might happened withougt my attention, plz let me know that. And even so many celebrities facing lack of reliable sources. So once u check and tell me whether it is currect or wrong what i edited there. Later i try to provide sources another one. Thanking you... Rockdwane (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chitramala.in

Do you think this website qualifies as RS? Besides, I found no sources stating it is unreliable, untrustable or notorious for giving inaccurate information. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kailash29792, sites like these never strike me as meeting WP:RS. To me it looks like another faceless blog. Who runs it? I go to their About us page and it tells me nothing. Actually, it tells me a little, they repeat each of the following sentences twice, which suggests they pay very little attention to copyediting, i.e. there's likely no clear editorial oversight, and/or certainly not the oversight you'd expect from a professional journalism outlet:
  • Know what your favorite celebrities are up to, get the latest news on new movie releases or check out on filmy gossip. Never look beyond us for the best audio songs, videos, accurate movie reviews and movie exclusives.
  • What makes us special? It’s the fact that our news is reliable and the fastest. Our Film News, Reviews, Gallery and Hot updates come straight out of sources close to the Industry. For more than a decade, Chitramala is the first to bring you all the latest updates on the happenings in the Indian film industry.
  • Entertainment on the go – yeah, we promise you that.. Our Chitramala mobile app enables live access to entertainment, for the film lovers – anyplace and anytime!! Follow us on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter and check out our latest high-quality videos on Youtube. All the latest film news and entertainment updates guaranteed to reach you first – right here at Chitramala. Don’t miss it!
From their Contact us page: "Fill out my online form." Ah, so it's one guy? Since we have so many problems in the Indian cinema world with spam and financial data fudging, my instinct is always to assume that they're not a reliable source unless, as TheRedPenOfDoom used to say, they have an established reputation for fact-checking. That's a really solid metric, I think. Hope that helps, and sorry for my delay in responding. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about vandalism

Hello! i am rockdwane i would like know about that how to protect wikipedia page. I am wating for ur reply. Thanking U... Rockdwane (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdwane Which page is in need of protection? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rangitaranga movie facing disruptive editing. Rockdwane (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Rockdwane: You can request page protections at WP:RPP. Amaury (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rockdwane - I don't see enough recent vandalism to warrant page protection. We don't protect pages unless there's a strong reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Unblock Request

Hi, CB. Hope you don't mind me contacting you about this, but a user who was blocked for making legal threats a while ago is still waiting for their unblock request to be reviewed after they withdrew their threats. Seems like maybe it got overlooked. See here. Regards. Amaury (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

regarding on Dandupalya movie

Hello! this is rockdwane, my question is why should we add "estimation" before the collection inspite of giving proper reliable dources regarding on collection. Thanking U... Rockdwane (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdwane, reliable sources of not, all box office values for Indian films are estimates, not unimpeachable facts. Each site, be it Hungama or Boxofficeindia.com or IBT, etc., has their own methodology for calculating gross figures. No reliable site is more reliable than another reliable site. With all the corruption in Indian cinema financial data, it's important to make this clear, including for readers unfamiliar with Indian films. See this archived discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank u so much for the information. Bt in my indian languages, "boxoffice india" and "hungama" only consider mostly bollywood and tollywood movies. Other than this two languages, They wont at all establish rest of the indian languages widely. While we must consider regional filmibeat or reputed papers like Deccan Herald, ToI, IBN live and some of the relevant sources to add.
Thanking U..
Because Of that reason only i am providing more than one reliable sources... if i make any mistake plz let me know that. Then i try to correct. Rockdwane (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for all the encouragement you gave me during the past week, and also for the scripts that I shamelessly copied from you. See you at the AIV, ;-) Widr (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Widr No probs! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Original run"

What exactly is this term on infoboxes supposed to mean? Is it the dates where the episodes were premiered on television (i.e. no reruns), or is it the "original" run of episodes that most television viewers remember (in other words, no episodes "burned off" afterthoughts or leftovers on different channels later on)?

It seems the Firefly (TV series) article follows the latter concept, listing the series original run as being in 2002 on Fox only (not including the episodes burned off in 2003 on the Sci-Fi channel). But the Invader Zim article seems to follow the former idea, chosing to included the episodes burned off in 2006 on Nicktoons Network as part of the "original run". Which is more correct?--2601:980:8000:3F82:D4C:2C8:81E3:5371 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2601:980:8000:3F82:D4C:2C8:81E3:5371 I think your instinct to ask WikiProject Television is the best approach, and I would defer to the community for an answer. Although it may cause some confusion, I don't know that it's entirely unreasonable to list episodes that are burned off, so long as they still represent the first US airings. On the other hand, some enthusiastic editors go a bit overboard with data in the infobox and in some cases it might be wiser to leave this field blank and direct readers to a section that explains the nuances. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mrs. Brown's Boys episodes

Dear Cyphoidbomb, I have took into account the copyrighted episode summaries on the episodes, however I fail to see why they are prohibited from being used in the summaries and I have seen other TV shows have summaries used from either the official website or websites giving summary of the episode. The original captions used gave good summaries of what happened in the episodes and now many are blank and empty and isn't everything referenced on Wikipedia copyrighted in some way anyway? Many thanks, - Jackstarrzz

(talk page stalker) It's one thing to have sources for episode air dates, production codes, and viewers. However, sourced or not, copying and pasting text from another website is called plagiarism. Amaury (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jackstarrzz, this is a fairly basic concept. All prose content, summaries, song, scripts, books, newspapers, magazines, etc. unless otherwise released to the public domain, (for example through a Creative Commons license,) are protected by copyright once they become published. See Berne Convention. This includes episode summaries. If you write a blog post, it's copyrighted. If somebody created their own blog and appropriated your content as though it was their own, you might be a bit pissed about that. Even if they attributed you, but copied whole paragraphs, that might irk you. There is a concept of fair use, but fair use doesn't cover building the bulk of an article on lifted content, which is what you are proposing. To avoid this problem, the film and television WikiProjects prefer that all summaries be written from scratch in the editor's own words. Now data, like dates and numbers, typically cannot be copyrighted, because they are not usually considered creative works. Titles, too. That's why we can freely list episode titles for TV shows. Note also that photographs are almost always considered copyrighted as well. If you intend to upload images, please be sure that you are doing so within the scope of our copyright policies. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about wikipedia photos

Hello! i added some celebrity photos of wikipedia. but few of them persisting to upload. see if it is more resolution its not getting uploaded, that time what should i do? How should i decrease size of photo to add? otherwise is there any method to add?.thanking u... Rockdwane (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this page

@Cyphoidbomb: Hi dear, Can you review this page List of songs recorded by Shaan. Please note that the list is very long that's why the page is in under construction. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafar24 (talk • contribs)

Zafar24 - Where are the references? List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga, a Featured List, has references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: dear, check this page List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. The reference is optional in lists pages because there are films/albums articles already written and people can check there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafar24 (talk • contribs)
Zafar24 - Optional? Please point me to the content guideline that says that references in list articles are optional. I'll wait. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Dear, I said optional because if people really need the sources then they will click on Film/Album name. Here is another example where there is no references please just see this List of songs recorded by Kumar Sanu.

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Couldn't resist laughing after coming across this edit of yours. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cyphoidbomb!

Thought I'd just say hi to a random user for no reason. So, hello! :) 85.211.80.153 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Cyphoidbomb will reply here for a minute! --119.63.142.8 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about

Sorry! i didnt get, actually i came to know that if it is lengthy then we should copy and paste bt not everything. Thats what i did. Bcz as i observed even so many senior editors did same what i did now, thats all. Thats y i was asking u always that if i make any mistakes plz let me know that. Bt now u r suddenly telling like this. See recently i got appreciated by 'DLP bot'. Bt u r scolding me about copy paste. Extreamly tell me, what should i do now? Rockdwane (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyphoidbomb&oldid=712354593"