Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
plz let me edit their is wrong information provided 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
1st day collections in AP were reported to be around 11.4cr (share).2nd day collections were around 10cr ap share.3rd day around 9 cr AP(share). Total first weekend ap share was around 30cr Vishwanath3939 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done the box-office sources are very unreliable and hence won't be added to the article. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣaglesorties 11:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
while "ref improve" could be used, removal of improperly sourced materials is also an equally valid option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it could be used. "Ref improve" could have been used and after a certain period of time, if no improvement is seen it could be blanked notifying the creator/major contributor. First you mentioned "not a reliable source" and now "improperly sourced", could you differentiate or educate me on that?
We only include reviews from professional review sites, and we do not even need to include every "professional" review that we may find. The bloat with non professional reviews needs to be and stay trimmed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Nice, they are also Professional film news sources because Some times TOI source is using Gulte, Greatandhra as a Reference and 123T, IB and some other Sources also are needed because each Individual site will give their Own Review and Rating regarding any Film. So, we can found a lot of Difference between Reviews and Ratings from Individual sites. So, we can't say that it is Bloating (or) Repetition. So, you're Wrong. If you think that you are not Wrong then please Welcome the Editors you may Know. I am ready to discuss with them. Raghusri (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this a one I should watch? I remember watching the trailer and I can understand why some of the reviews are negative. The article is great, it is well written, well sourced and I couldn't find one issue with any of the sources. Once all of the minor points above are addressed, I'll be happy to promote this! JAGUAR 21:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar:1: Nenokkadine is a case of wasted opportunities. Except for some four or five sequences, nothing actually impress us and it is its inherent issue. But what i loved was its intermission sequence and the fight in the car park. Anyways, thanks for reviewing the article, Jaguar. I've addressed the issues and i hope it is good to go now. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them, Pavan! Without further ado I'll pass this. Another excellent article. I really enjoy Telugu films, and I've started to watch them more than American films in recent months. It's a long story, but I'm slowly ignoring all of the recent commercial films. I'll take your advice and won't watch this film, though it's a shame that they wasted such good opportunities such as great shooting locations such as London. JAGUAR 22:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)