User talk:Cyphoidbomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fictional content[edit]

Hi Fictional titles are being added to Indian Film Production houses like [1], [2] by IPs 103.252.25.51 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), 103.252.25.60 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). Please look into the matter. Thanks. Sid95Q (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: I've blocked the most recent IP for 31 hours. If it continues, consider asking for a range block at WP:AN. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi never reported any IP range before can you help me in doing that as the IP is again adding fictional content 103.252.25.53 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). Thanks. Sid95Q (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Sid95Q: It's not difficult. You just list the problematic IPs and point out the problem edits. I reported the range here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

No Spam Barnstar Hires.png The No Spam Barnstar
You did a great job by blocking Androidbijay1. Aggarwala2727 (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Talk:2.0 (film).
Message added 12:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aggarwala2727 (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

PR activities on Aditi Sajwan[edit]

A user is trying to add external links on Aditi Sajwan [3]. Please look into this matter. Thanks. Sid95Q (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

PR Activities on Aditi Sajwan[edit]

In your words Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, if its true then why other public figures wikipedia page show their social media links ? You guys not give us the opportunity to add external links option when we did it , the information was removed by some users . Adding those links in website area still deleted by some users. What do you want ? It's important to add external links and every public figures wiki page external link categories show their social media platforms links Deb Nandy (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I indef'ed this user. DMacks (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor[edit]

I have a lot to say about this edit of yours, so kindly bear with me.

a) Condescending edit summaries, in which you refer to contributors to an FA as "kids" is not okay.
b) You have been editing Indian film articles for a while now to know that we do not have a reliable Rotten Tomatoes-like website to summarise reviews. So you know that when we talk about an actor receiving "acclaim" or "praise" for a performance, it's after we have read multiple reviews and see what the general consensus is for that particular performance. That's been the policy that has been followed in each of the Indian film actress biographies that I have written, and not once was I told by any of the reviewers to "raise the bar".
c) You have seen me around me for a while, and our paths have crossed a few times. The least one could expect is a little bit of "good faith". If you had your doubts about the claim, a neutrally worded edit summary would have done the job as well, as would a talk page message. I presume you did not read the reviews for Kapoor's performance in the "four films" you removed from the lead, so instead, I will show good faith and kindly ask you to do so.
d) I know it's okay for you to admonish me for lashing out when I am at the receiving end of targeted harassment, while not once asking the perpetrator to stop his actions; whatever it is, I respect you as an editor, and I think it's high time you value my contributors here as well instead of making such condescending remarks. Thank you. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Krimuk2.0: I appreciate your note. You are largely correct, and I'm sorry. A little context: Much of my editing around this time was reverting lots of PR puffery from articles. "Well known", "popular", come watch the show on weekends. This edit was from January, but I noticed it a few hours ago: "popular", "bagged the lead", "rose to fame", "household name", "critically acclaimed", "subtle grey shades", "household name", "heart throb", "rave reviews", "popularity outside India", "prestigious film festivals", more "rave reviews". It puts me in Hulk mode. Now because I can't check individual articles every day, I often look at large ranges of diffs over time to look for problems that have survived. So with the Surbhi Jyoti article, I was looking at the net result of months of edits. Only when I find something particularly irritating might I try to track down the person who added it and slap their wrists, Hulk-style. Similarly when looking at the Kareena Kapoor article, I was probably looking at a large range of diffs, and only saw the multiple unsourced claims of critical acclaim, which are pervasive in Indian film/biographical articles. (Do they need to be sourced somehow? Yes. If not where they are, elsewhere in the article. It doesn't matter whether there's a Rotten Tomatoes equivalent for Indian films or not.)
Anyway, I'm going down a circuitous path to say I didn't know that you added the content, and my comments were absolutely not directed at you personally. You are one of a small group of capable editors that I know I don't need to police, and under normal circumstances if I'm checking article diffs, I'll usually skip yours, because I know that you edit with integrity and quality. This should be evident from how infrequently I drop notes on your talk page. So please forgive me for using commentary that sounded critical of you personally, that was not my aim. I could have been less condescending, yes, but I gotta say, with the amount of frustration I endure looking at walls of PR drivel every day, that's pretty much the only way Hulkbomb gets to blow off steam. Anyhow, again, I didn't mean to direct that steam at you. As for the "admonishment", I said fairly clearly that it was not an official admonishment. I was just trying to help inspire you to not take the bait from an editor who was trying to be a provocateur. You can look at it like "Oh he's selectively lecturing me instead of lecturing the other guy? He's out to get me!" or you can look at it like "Ah, it's a friendly gesture, he's trying to help me avoid getting dragged into somebody else's toxic drama." My intentions were the latter and I hope you'll continue to see me as an ally, which is what I've always intended to be to you and the rest of the ICTF. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that you didn't refer to me in your edit summary, Cyphoidbomb. I have always considered you to be an ally and will continue to do so. Apologies for snapping at you this morning, but when I have to constantly deal with negativity (see below), with nary a support from my fellow editors, it gets a bit difficult at times. But I really thank you for your kind words -- it means a lot. Face-smile.svg Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you, Cyphoidbomb, on this one. Kapoor's performance was deemed weak and pointless in Udta Punjab and was almost panned-more like mixed-in Heroine. Yet the editor added two other films to show that she was doing acclaimed work during that period, which she wasn't. Why all of a sudden two new films were added to her lead anyway? Same goes for her film Asoka, which in alternate reality had established in Bollywood (LOL). Seriously? It's laughable how a flop film (Asoka) with panned performance becomes notable just because an actress/actor received a Filmfare nomination. Also how did it and her minuscule role in K3G really establish Kareena in 2001? I mean as far as I know she established herself with Jab We Met but the editor made it seem like Kareena debuted and established herself in just one year. Laughable isn't?Krish | Talk 17:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yes I agree with Krish above that she was NOT an established actress before Jab We Met... and more importantly, listen to Cyphoid when he says something... --Adamstraw99 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you, Adamstraw99 or anyone else thinks, we follow what reliable sources say. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Haha...it's funny that you say that because I don't see Ashoka being mentioned in this source. Why not replace it with Mujhe Kuch Kehna Hai? Also go and check the reviews for Heroine and Udta Punjab, both received meh reviews for her performance, especially the latter. BOI is a joke because it considers films like Ra.one, 36 China Town, Chup Chup Ke, Tees Maar Khan, De Dana Dan and so many dumb comedies of Akhay and SRK as hits when the industry considers them as disasters.Krish | Talk 21:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Also note how KRIMIK the outdated version considers constructive criticism as "negativity". LMAO.Krish | Talk 21:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


Decorated moon.jpg

Eid Mubarak!

Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid.

Zafar24Talk 23:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Vivek Chourasia[edit]

Thought you might be interested in this hilarity and also this.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Help me, Jesus! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
OMG! This madness!!Aggarwala2727 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Race 3 ref issue[edit]

Hello, was the reference I added to Race 3 for Salma Khan as Producer not correct? Aggarwala2727 (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aggarwala2727: I don't know. Have you asked TropicAces, who deleted significant formatting as well as your reference in this edit? What's the deal with that, TropicAces? You removed a link to Salman Khan, removed {{not a typo}}, even though it was previously thought that this was a typo. You removed soundtrack info from the infobox as well, but what discussion did you participate in before you did that? Are you just randomly removing stuff? Here's one discussion you might look at. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Aggarwala2727: for some reason (probably through an oversight of my own) I couldn’t get the source to work to be next to his name (not below it on a new line) and since he’s credited on the billing block I don’t see why a source was even needed. Probably all my bad... TropicAces (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)tropicAces
Ok, Thanks. Aggarwala2727 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

JUNE 2018[edit]

Please do not post misleading box office figures like you been doing with Shirish kunder. This is not an advertisment channel. It's an encyclopedia..mary beth senior — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marybethsenior (talkcontribs) 17:08, June 18, 2018 (UTC)

I will respond to this on your talk page, since you are more likely to benefit from my response. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Marybethsenior issue[edit]

Hello Cyphoidbomb, I saw that on the user talk page of Marybethsenior, she had been blanking the contents of the talk page like Welcome, CSD, etc. Is it normal to do? Aggarwala2727 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aggarwala2727: Users are allowed to blank their own talk page. If a user has been warned about something and they blank their talk page, it's widely considered as proof that they've read the warning. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Ok! I understand.

1.187.122.141 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

KomailShayan[edit]

Hi an IP 188.118.114.121 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) is again adding Komail Shayan as music director. Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: Thank you for keeping your eyes peeled. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

SiddiqBot[edit]

Hlleo Cyphoidbomb, I was recently searching and I saw a bot SiddiqBot created by SiddiqSazzad001, is it a legitimate bot? Please tell me. Aggarwala2727 (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)