User talk:Cyphoidbomb

Janatha Garage

Sir I have been having a problem at this article with this one specific IP that keeps changing the cast roles. I can't seem to find the reason as to why he is but looking at it, it seems to be vandalism. I would be great if we got a page protection on this. SP013 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sarkaru Vaari Paata

Can we get a deletion for this redirect as we have a draft for this article but when we try to move it, it won't work and also there wont be IP vandals adding content constantly. SP013 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you help in creating Wikipedia article?

There is show coming on StarPlus lockdown ki Love story i want to create the show article can you help me in this? Unknownnreasonn (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Unknownnreasonn: You should go through the Articles for Creation process. I would probably also recommend committing to spell the name of the show with proper capitalisation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Learn to be...

Please learn to be more decent in your responses to people, have some humanity. No agenda is being pushed here, but the mere fact that “consensus” keeps pointing to the need to add the word “suicide” when it has not been proven as a “clear case of suicide” shows where ethics in this website are. Learn your knowledge on this topic first, then comment. It was a request to simply remove one word from info box and your response adds a lot of sarcasm & rudeness that was not necessary. The fact that this is of “warring” topic just shows that it is important to multiple users, but it is okay, when the truth comes up then your team will just have to update everything anyway. Thanks. Justiceforssr (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Justiceforssr: Well, speaking about learning "your knowledge on this topic first", the suicide determination is adequately sourced. "Clear case of suicide" is what five medical examiners asserted, not something I made up. If you fail to grasp that, or don't want to grasp that, that's your problem. And yes, if there is a change to the determinations that have been amply sourced, Wikipedia will gladly adjust to reflect that. It's really easy. But if the facts remain the same, will you adjust? That's not as easy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I will adjust, but won’t need to - thanks. It’s not for personal reasons, but actual facts that were coming out regarding the case. News reports and doctors are not end all... Justiceforssr (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

please do not be disrespectful again and ask users if they GRASP the idea or not. Everyone has their own intelligence. Justiceforssr (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources, i.e. news reports that quote forensic medical examiners, are the end all. We're not interested in speculation and fantasy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

New(ish) range for HK friend

You've got 218.255.72.0/22 blocked, but I'm seeing them active on 218.255.71.0/22 recently [1]. I've got the range on my list to check, but worth reviewing for possible block. Ravensfire (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Are we seeing the same level of incompetence? I see an edit to the Himesh article, but what else has there been that would lead us to think it's him? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, Hk based range, same IP, edits to the same articles (HR, Ram Kapoor, others), [2] with the large number of linked names which they like to do, [3] adding fairly minor instrument to infobox for HR (see [4] for similar), [5] valid but usual promotional edit for HR, [6] typical overlinking edit, [7] another valid, but promotional edit for HR. The larger range for the IP is 218.255.64.0/20, which covers both of those smaller ranges. I've got that larger range on my monitor page, and see low level of activity in the past few months, but seems to have increased a little bit lately, and noticed your partial revert on Ram Kapoor of their edits today. No issues with continuing to monitor it for now, but there's no question this is the same group. Ravensfire (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Never mind. I poked through and found a bunch that suggest they're the same person. Blocked 1 year. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, Thank ya! Ravensfire (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

still online

Hi. You still around? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Vettipaiyan

There is a user who knows so much despite editing for only two days.TamilMirchi (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The user TheBirdsShedTears knows much about Wikipedia despite editing for only two days. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@TamilMirchi: Hi there, I think you're confused. That user started editing in January and has over 12,000 edits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock

User:Atlantic052 is a sock of User:Hectore123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4055:28B:AAFD:0:0:216A:D8AD (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I think this, and this are the same persons. There is a sockmaster who edits articles related SAB TV right? Or was it some other channel? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Seems possible. I've opened an SPI case. I can't think of any SAB TV socks off the top of my head. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

A user who does not use summaries to indicate what they are changing

@Ab207, Ravensfire, and Bovineboy2008: Abishekjerold has not used a single summary out of his 273 edits when editing an article to my knowledge. I have also seen him use the talk page only once ever after he created his account. The user does not respond to Warnings at all and he vandalizes pages by A). Changing up the cast order without any reason as to why he is B). Adding unnecessary puffery to a certain cast member without any reliable source. SP013 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

SP013, there's a couple of templates you can use to let them know that edit summaries are helpful. {{Uw-editsummary}} is a general message that gives them some guidance. If they are removing information without a summary, there are other messages. See Help:Edit_summary#Notes_for_experienced_users. While not required, not using summaries ever is often from not knowing about them so friendly messages help. If they ignore those, it's can be a sign that they aren't really here to collaberate. Ravensfire (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

That was a funny comment. You made my day .

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox images

Sir, recently a user seems on an agenda to add images of the subject when she was "at her career peak". First added a new image here, which got copyvio-ed. Then they added this one here. My point is should we be keeping the recent most image or the one taken during the subject's career peak. The original one [8] seems to be in teh article for a considerable time, suggesting it was the preferred one. Also notice the user's harsh language here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: This is one of those things that may have to be hashed out through discussion. I don't know of any specific community preference on what type of image to include. I think that most biographies of folks from the modern era tend to use semi-recent images. Brad Pitt (FA), Amitabh Bachchan... I don't know that there's any clear guideline on this. I personally get a little irritated though when people use Wikipedia to glamourise subjects, but that's just my personal irritation and has little weight. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... that Sridevi image from 2013 seems to serve the case. Pictures of her from 1980s-90s seems too old, which this user seems to be POV pushing. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I looked at a few more FAs Elvis Presley has a sexy Jailhouse Rock era image, not fat Vegas Elvis. Rani Mukerji has a 2018 shot. Shah Rukh Khan, 2018. Charlie Chaplin has a youngish photo of him. Richard Nixon has an in-office-era shot, Paul McCartney has a 2018 shot. So my feeling is that it's fairly inconsistent. But on general principle I have a problem with arguments like This "The legendary artist is deceased. It is respectable and honorable to present the image that brought the artist success." This sounds like we're actively paying tribute to or memorialising the subject, which is absolutely the wrong motivation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a fan. Anyway Cabayi has flagged that image for copy-vio. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Acharya (film)

Can I get a page protection for this film as there are IP's that arbitrarily change the cast and dates of the film. SP013 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sidharth Shukla

Hi, who will perform the cleanup for Awards and Nominations section for Sidharth Shukla page? Cristmess619127 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cristmess619127: You can do it if you want. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Plot copyvio

Hello, In this edit, I have removed plot of Palnati Yuddham (1947 film) which is copied word-to-word from this Hindu article. Notifying for further action. Regards --Ab207 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Very nice cyphoidbomb keep it up thanks for contributing me Humanrabbit96 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

V (film)

I have seen multiple IP addresses putting the same unsourced content over and over again so can I get a page protection for this. SP013 (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

More cast reordering issue

As you have seen, we have another account now attempting to reorder cast listings. Of note; it appears this account is attempting to supplant film posters to their preferred versions. Contrast File:Mallusingh 2012.jpg, added by this editor in replacement of File:Mallusingh.jpg. The latter has been restored. This editor appears to have been doing a lot of this. See Special:ListFiles/Vaishnav_bk for images they have uploaded that are not yet deleted. I'm going to be cleaning this up, and dropping another warning regarding this issue to the editor. I'm not asking for action on your part; I just wanted to let you know this appears to be a new wrinkle in this never ending cast reordering saga. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Yeah, this editor is on my radar. Note Talk:Lucifer (film)#Conflicting information. He appears to have fabricated Starring cast based on his own interpretations. I find that in Indian film/TV articles, people have no idea what "stars/starring" means and often assume it means whomever appeared in the work, loosely construed. It doesn't help that there are no consistent credits in most Indian entertainment. But I've probably already harped about this... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I've found a couple more "Vaishnav" accounts at Mallu Singh, but nothing that feels entirely like sockpuppetry, specifically the hopping accounts specifically to be disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah you have :) Preach on :) I wish there were some way to definitively untangle the mess of which actor should be listed first in films produced in India. However, as you've noted, there isn't any way to do so. Failing that, I wish there were some way to end the ceaseless reordering. But, that seems impossible as well, especially given this has gone on for at least six years, and possibly much longer on other films. To date, there hasn't seemed to have been any way to effectively communicate how disruptive these reorderings are. Sadly, there are probably a LOT more people willing to reorder the casts to their favorite than there are people willing to police this disruptive behavior (you...me...and nobody else?). I don't know how to make it stop, short of fully protecting any article that suffers repeated reordering attempts, and that is a nuke-it-from-orbit approach I'd rather not take. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Protecting Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput

On 30 August 2020, semi-protection will expire. On 23 August, you gave us a heads-up: Since I've chimed in on some of these discussions, I'll probably pass on renewing any expired protection on these SSR articles and talk pages, but I'm sure you all know that you can always go to WP:RFPP should the issues flare up again. And they will. I'm sure you're right about what we can expect once protection expires. But before that happens, I'd appreciate your thoughts about lessons learned.

To recap:

• On 22 June 2020, you first semi-protected Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, noting: "Persistent disruptive editing. Multiple anonymous editors dropping by to leave unfounded conspiracy theories and suppositions." Protection expired on 6 July.
• On 8 July, you again semi-protected Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput due to persistent disruptive editing. Protection expired on 29 July.
• On 30 July, I showed you a diff that, I suggested, "makes me think it's already time to protect that page again."
• Twelve minutes later, you again semi-protected Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput due to: "Persistent disruptive editing - Continued promotion of conspiracy theories." (You also indefinitely blocked the user in question, thank you very much.)

There is no question that the semi-protection you imposed was in each instance entirely justified and prevented disruptive editing. However, it also had the effect of making it virtually impossible for unregistered users, or accounts less than 30 days old and with fewer than 500 editsthat are less than four days old and have made less than 10 edits, to submit an edit request. I say virtually because the process such users must follow is so complicated that, in my opinion, only veteran editors can navigate it.

After clicking the View source tab at Sushant Singh Rajput, one is invited to submit an edit request by clicking the blue button and following instructions. Doing so leads to WP:RFED, which is where the going gets tough and the inexperienced get going. If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, one is told, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests. Those instructions in turn explain how to create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a {pagelinks} template and the edit being requested. I have plenty of experience in requesting page protection, but even I find this process cumbersome and intimidating.

Perhaps that's the point. In the 27 days since you last semi-protected Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, there has not been a single edit request. God knows I don't want to go back to the free-for-all disruptive editing that necessitated protection in the first place. But I can't help feeling we're missing some middle ground. Is there no way to lock out vandals and conspiracy theorists without shutting down well-meaning edit requests from presumably sane individuals? NedFausa (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Semi-protection is a pretty low-level protection. Anyone could post to the talk page in four days and 10 edits. I'm actually surprised we haven't seen more SPAs, but that could also be why we're seeing semi-retired editors chiming in. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what middle-ground you're proposing, but if you want to have the page protections lowered, I won't stand in your way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood the constraints of semi-protected pages, and have struck/revised that portion of my comment above. However, this correction leaves me even more puzzled as to why there has not been a single edit request in the past 27 days. In any case, I'll not seek to have protection reduced. In five days, semi-protection will expire, and we can take a fresh temperature reading afterwards. NedFausa (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding article review

Article has fixed already it was published long back Charlie063 (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If u cant help in fixig it y ur removing tags Charlie063 (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)