User talk:Cyphoidbomb

References

Hi Cyphoidbomb,

I want to ask a question. Are YouTube and Spotify are referenced for non- vocalist artists article? Thank You - Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: I don't understand the question. Are you asking if they are considered reliable sources? I don't know about Spotify, but I think it probably would not be. I don't know where they get their information. There are situations where a YouTube video could be a reliable source, but it depends on the subject. If you are using a YouTube video to prove that a person had a credit in a music video or something, you can do that, but we cannot use potential copyright violations as references. So to be safe, you should only use videos from verified YouTube channels, like Eros Music, or Sony Music, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, I was talking about this article. I wants to improve this article. But I don't know which reliable or not reliable source that's why I asked you for help. Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 16:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bhabiji Ghar Par Hai (About Shilpa Shinde)

Hi dear, I didn't agree with your this edit: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/823482226 ) You said that this is not encyclopedic. I don't agree with you because Shilpa Shinde is main cast, She done this show. She was confident about her character Angoori but she was wrong. I am not humiliating Shilpa Shinde, because Shilpa Shinde said that "Show will shut down without her". My edit is encyclopedic because it is about the character of Angoori that she was wrong. Readers should know that. It is not gossip because Shilpa Shinde (main cast) said that about Bhabiji Ghar Par Hai. Zafar24Talk 21:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zafar24: Many people make predictions. Why do we care? Many people are wrong. Why do we care? A person who gets kicked off of a show, they might be bitter and say rash things. Why do we care? What specific academic question are you answering with the inclusion of that statement? If critics had said this, then it might be worth noting, because the critics were wrong. But an embittered actor who had a beef with the producers of the show? Why do we care? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

When she said, "BhabiJi Ghar Par Hai will shut down without me", she was confident about her character Angoori, she forgot about others three lead actors, others which are not lead actors but they are also popular and popularity of the show, she was proven wrong. I Believe that, this is encyclopedic. You said, "Many people make predictions"; but Shilpa Shinde is not just a person but she was main cast, if we assume she kicked out of show or she left the show, how can she said that show will shut down without her, because show was very popular even that time when she left. She was main lead cast of the show thats why her prediction is important to include in encyclopedia.Zafar24Talk 13:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zafar24: Again, it comes off as gossipy and I still don't see what academic question you are answering. Why don't you ask over at WikiProject Television to see what they think? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zafar24: I don't know what are you trying to say? But that reference is not part of the encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOT. Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 09:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

About languages in infobox

Hi Cyphoidbomb in some Indian articles there are fields in infobox like "native_name and romanized_name" so I wanted that they are allowed or not. Sidaq pratap (talk) 15:06 2 February 2018 (UTC) Sidaq pratap (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sidaq pratap: Per WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, we should not include Indic scripts in the infobox or the lead. Part of this had to do with people edit-warring over which native language to use, or the reordering of the languages. Is the person/film/place more Tamil than Telugu? It's been a persistent problem. Anyway, the community discussed it, and they don't want Indic scripts in the lead or in the infobox. As for the Romanized name, I'm not sure. It would depend on what type of article it was for. You should look at the infobox instructions. Since you didn't mention which article you were talking about, I can't point you to the correct infobox instructions page, but the format is usually Template:Infobox ___. For film articles it would be Template:Infobox film for people it's Template:Infobox person. If you paste that in the search field, it will lead you to the correct infobox instructions page. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that BLPs shouldn't have Indic scripts, but why should single-language film articles follow suit? The parameter "native name" should be abolished then, right? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kailash29792, why would we abolish the parameter? There are Japanese films, Italian films, Spanish films, etc. that are unaffected by this. The whole "no Indic scripts" issue exists because of India's unique problem with multiple languages/ethnicities competing for attention/recognition. We've all seen this: When a Tamil film is dubbed/filmed in other languages, we might add the Tamil name, but then someone will come along and add the Telugu and Malayalam names. It's just an "attractive nuisance". The major discussions took place at WT:IN, in case anyone is interested in reading the rationale. The archived discussions can be found at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 64#Multiple Indicscript in infoboxes are out of control and in the subsequent RfC. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Only disruptive editors would do like that. I would only add those languages in which the film was shot, that too if the title is not English. Because I believe that is the way it should be. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia:HATSHOP?

Hi Cyphoidbomb,

I want to know what is Wikipedia:HATSHOP? Because when I was requesting for user rights, some of admins claim that I appears to be engaged in hat shopping. Why it happen? And How to resolve it. Thank You. Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 06:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: I think it's fairly obvious when reading WP:HATSHOP. But the simplest answer is: Hat shopping is when someone applies for user privileges for no reason other than to have them, as if these rights give them greater status or legitimacy. I can't see you having a need for the AutoWikiBrowser. This is a very powerful tool and users need to establish themselves as highly competent and trustworthy before using it, as any mistake could cause significant damage. To put this into perspective, I probably had made 15,000-18,000 edits before I was even curious about AWB. I'm not clear why you would need Pending changes reviewer rights. How many articles are on your watchlist that are protected by pending changes? Doubt you need Rollback rights. Rollback is something even I don't use very often. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:.Then Which user right I deserve now? Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 08:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Deserve? These aren't promotions or trophies. Extended confirmed permissions is fine for you right now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Bigg Boss controversies

Hi Cyphoidbomb The content of this page List of Bigg Boss controversies is more like gossipy than academic in nature and I don't think there is any need of creating another page listing controversies as notable controversies are already mentioned on Bigg Boss page and related pages. I was going to nominate this page for deletion but than I thought of talking to an admin on this topic first. Thanks Sidaq pratap (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC) Sidaq pratap (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sidaq pratap: If you do choose to nominate it for deletion, you should read WP:BEFORE first. It's important to figure out what your main argument is for deletion, as opposed to other options like merging. You might also want to post an invitation at WT:TV to see if you can get members of WikiProject Television to comment. (They're not terribly interested in Indian TV, but it's worth a shot.) Please keep your invitation as neutral as possible, ex: "Hi, your comments are requested at ___ to discuss whether or not this reality show article should be deleted." Hope that helps, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:PLOTSUM

Hi Cyphoidbomb,

In Ishqbaaaz, my edit was undone by you. I am just following the policy of WP:PLOTSUM. Where you can see, The Film style guideline suggests that "plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words". The TV style guideline recommends "no more than 200 words" for television episodes in episode lists, or "no more than 400 words" in standalone episode articles. The Novels style guideline says that plot summaries "should aim to be no more than three or four paragraphs". The Video game style guideline states "no more than approximately 700 words to retain focus". However, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidance. Indian TV Shows episodes are largest. We don't know when these shows are going air off. It's mean there going lots of twists or turns. Then the plot section became a great novel book. If you see the longest running show of Star Plus's Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai which has cross 2,578 episode, where you can see plot section has warning template. Otherwise that plot section is smaller than Ishqbaaaz. Please think about future. Wikipedia is not a blogspot or other website (Ex.TellyUpdates.com). So If we add simple concept of plot summaries then that would be fine. Thank You, Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 07:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: I'm well versed in a great many Wikipedia guidelines, especially those in MOS:FILM and MOS:TV. Secondly, did you read my edit summary? I wrote "...this was discussed at WT:TV or MOS:TV and editors seemed OK with longer plot if there was no episode table." This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Need clarification on plot size again. Most editors seemed fine with expanding the plot section if there wasn't an episode list with episode summaries. Ishbaaaz has no episode table, and it's unlikely one will ever be created, because they're 463 episodes along, but there would still be an academic value in providing a general overview of each season. The community felt that 500 words maximum per season was sufficient, and this would discourage most of the unnecessary twists and turns. We're not required to use the maximum of 500 words per season, but a certain level of detail can be included. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

allow to communicate

first of all your system is not allowing sockpuppets to communicate with admins. If you allow us to write to you in the first place, we can make plea. You are forcefully taking a volunteers editing rights for six months, you are not guaranteeing them unblock. Why dont you communicate to arbitration committe, and bring changes to sock puppet policy using new software programs. Volvoteach (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

forwarded message sent to Kailash

Initially in 2010, while I was blocked for edit warring, I created a seperate account because I was new to wikipedia at that time, I was not aware of sockpuppet policy, and standard offer. By the time I knew about it, it was too late. In recent times, I already apologised for years of sockpuppetry and wanted to return to editing legitimately.

Unfortunately the arbitration committe is not responding for my requests to come clean. I even offered them to provide my passport as identity proof. Unfortunately I have contributed to almost every article in Indian cinema. Actually you are the one responsible for collateral damage alongside vensatry. Now you tell me what I should do. Because of the damage you guys did to me, even standard offer is not guranteed. This is the problem with you Tamil people. You always indulge in damaging your competetor.

Anyways considering my recent edits in wikipedia. Editors like you and vensatry can support me in contacting the arbitration committe and explaining my situation to them.

I feel that the wikipedia sockpuppet policy needs crucial changes in the system because, most of the sock puppets are not aware of sock puppetry, when they create a new username. Wikipedia is wasting lot of resources and time on checkuser.

Actually there should be a mechanism in wikipedia: 1. wikipedia admins should assign one username, one email address to one editor under one I.P. address 2. After the generation of username, the I.P. address must be locked from creating new usernames. This will allow admins to identify who is who. 3. Once a username is generated in wikipedia using the editors I.D. proof, An email must be sent to the user about sock puppet policy. 4. If a user is blocked under vandalism or edit warring. (there should be a standard blockage for only 24 hrs) An email must be sent immediately indicating not to create a new username which is against wikipedia policy. The email must also include information about other wikipedia standards such as five pillars of wikipedia.

Kindly forward this message to arbitration committte. Volvoteach (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps your pleas were rejected because of your continued use of socks. You could take help from User:Let There Be Sunshine, a formerly blocked user who was re-allowed to edit. Cyphoidbomb, can you please help Volvoteach? --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Points to Ponder by Padmalskhmisx[edit source] 1. I cant take help from him. You also re allow me to edit on padmalakshmisx for 48 hrs. 2. I wish to take help from the admin. Because I respect you. 3. Allow sock puppets to communicate with you in the first place (ex: provide your email address) 4. Give them a window period to test their edits 5. If they dont change, then offer standard offer. 6. I have proved time and again about my information gathering capabilities for editing difficult articles such as Indian Film selections and Screenings at Cannes Film Festival created by me. Show me one editor who is competent enough to recreate that article. 7. The Sock puppet system is outdated. Volvoteach (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Volvoteach (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)