User talk:Gopakumar 09

Recent edits to Wazir (film)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Wazir (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Te3n has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Te3n was changed by Gopakumar 09 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.854293 on 2016-06-17T14:41:44+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole

The content you added here at Te3n, "The film was considered as a flop at the box office" is not appropriate for inclusion for a number of reasons. "Flop" is hyperbolic, subjective language that has no academic value. Same with "blockbuster, super hit" and so forth. If you want to be constructive, add numbers supported by reliable sources. Gross values, budgets, etc. We also don't use one source's opinion and regurgitate it as an indisputable fact. That gives undue weight to one person's opinion. We don't describe films as "rotten" simply because that's the hyperbolic term that Rotten Tomatoes uses to describe negative critical response. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion vs. fact part 2

Your edits here are problematic for a few reasons: 1) You have basically just copy/pasted content found here. You may not copy, or even closely paraphrase content found elsewhere, as this presents copyright violation problems. 2) "Huge" is a subjective (and often hyperbolic) statement, which should be your clue that it is inappropriate for inclusion. I've already mentioned the issue of hyperbole to you above on your talk page. 3) Indiatvnews is presenting an opinion about audience reaction, and we do not present opinions as incontrovertible facts. Surely you know the difference between an opinion and a fact? If so, then you need to be able to attribute opinions to the person/source who expressed the opinion, and to properly present the content as an opinion, balanced against other opinions, and with appropriate context. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits

Your edits here are not constructive. 1) You are again presenting an opinion as fact, and you're doing it in the lead, which is deceptive because it implies all critics thought this way. "Despite the star cast Dilwale was unsuccessful in creating any impact on the audience and on the box office". Please don't submit this nonsense again. 2) You rearranged the article sections into a format that is inconsistent with MOS:FILM. Information about the film's soundtrack is considered secondary content. Secondary content should not appear before primary content, like box office data. Please familiarize yourself with MOS:FILM if you intend to edit film articles, and please do not restore this ordering, as it will be considered disruptive. Both of these issues were clearly explained in my edit summaries [1][2] after I reverted you the first time. When content you submit is reverted, please click "View history" at the top of the page to find out why. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning about POV hyperbole like "blockbuster", "super hit", "flop" etc.

Re: this edit, I've previously informed you that POV hyperbole doesn't belong in articles. An entertainment website can declare a film a "blockbuster" if they want to, but that has no clear academic value and doesn't belong in a neutrally-worded encyclopedia. Blockbuster is a subjective, vague terminology that only comes across as promotional fluff. Further, we don't use one site's declaration as a statement of fact. We wouldn't describe a movie as "rotten" simply because RottenTomatoes.com declares bad films as "rotten". All content must be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional one. Please use some common sense. If you add this type of content again, I will interrupt your editing privileges until you comply.

Additionally, Filmibeat is not considered a reliable source by WP:ICTF. Please refrain from using it. I also removed the other content in that edit because you make a vague statement about the film's opening day record without providing sufficient context to make it clear what the record was. Your failure to include sufficient details makes it look like you're claiming the film had the best opening day of all films in the world. That's just sloppy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Puthiya Niyamam has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Puthiya Niyamam was changed by Gopakumar 09 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.878945 on 2016-07-18T03:17:37+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This block is in response to this edit where you attempt to summarize the entirety of a film's critical response, apparently after you went out of your way to cherrypick negative reviews without providing any academic balance. Content must be presented in a neutral point of view, which you failed to do.

Additionally, the plot summary you added is clearly copy/pasted. I find the same content here. Plot summaries must be written from scratch in your own words, not copied from other sources. An acceptable plot summary will cover in 300-700 words the beginning, middle and end of a film, rather than vaguely describe "the crux of the film". If you add copyrighted content again, you will be blocked again. You're not helping. Plagiarism is lazy and academically dishonest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gopakumar 09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reviews of White film is negative everywhere hence I am presenting the facts and not biased

Decline reason:

You are not RottenTomatoes.com, so you don't get to decide what the entirety of critical response is for a film. I found at least one 3/5 star review after only 10 seconds of research, and I found praise for the film's cinematography at the same time. In contrast, you seem far more interested in presenting a wall of scathing quotations with no context than presenting as neutral a perspective as possible with academic goals in mind. Wikipedia is not a quote farm. Given your other problems with POV editing, I'm not convinced that you presently understand what the problem is our how to fix it. You need to read WP:NPOV. You should also try to find amore balanced critical response section to model yours after. First Blood might be a good example. It's not just quotes, there is some attempt to provide context and academic value, while balancing criticism and praise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pavam Pavam Rajakumaran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lovedale. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Pink (2016 film).

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 07:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gopakumar 09. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For this, where you describe Pink (2016 film) as "a clear winner". As well as your needless introduction of "successful". And here, where you describe the the run as "a lucrative 50 day run". It's increasingly clear that you don't understand what a neutral point of view is. Being blocked indefinitely doesn't mean that you're blocked forever, only that you're blocked for the foreseeable future. If you choose to request an unblock, you will need to convince a reviewing admin that you understand what we're supposed to be doing here. Promoting films and making puffery-filled statements about films is not it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gopakumar 09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request you to kindly reverse my blocking since I read many reliable articles based on the collections of the movie Pink, and all of them reported it as being profitable . Also I have provided a reference which also state the same.

Decline reason:

No point to unblock you unless you know POV edits are inappropriate (for example, "a clear winner"). Nor if you aren't willing to work with other editors to achieve consensus. Yamla (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The issue with "successful" in this edit is that it appears you went out of your way to describe the run as successful when you also described the film as "a clear winner". It's puffery on top of puffery. It's also ambiguous writing, since it's unclear if the success relates to the financial performance or if the success relates to the number of days it ran in theaters. If the film had an "unsuccessful" 50 day run, would the reader infer that it was pulled out of theaters before the 50 day schedule had been completed? This ambiguity is a side effect of using inappropriate promotional clichés copied from Indian entertainment trades. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gopakumar 09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is not puffery over puffery. The original statement did mention in terms of "box office" collection hence the reader would understand that it implicates financial performance. In India the profitability of a Hindi movie is determined well within the 7 days of its release. Since a movie runs for 50 days it indicates that the theatre owners would still like to screen the Pink movie over the new releases despite India being the largest producer of Hindi films per year. I gave my comments on basis of my analysis and I did have a neutral approach based on the reliable media reports.

Decline reason:

We don't care about your analysis. We care about the analysis of reliable sources, not your evaluation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gopakumar 09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The analysis is based on the reliable media reports. Please show any reliable report which defers my analysis. Thanks a lot.

Decline reason:

Nope. The burden of proof is on you to provide references that support what you're writing, and you're not allowed to perform analysis yourself. If there are no sources, it shoudn't be in Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This appears to be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I strongly urge you to remove your previous unblock request and take the time to read what's been pointed out to you, over and over and over again, before you end up having your access to this talk page revoked. --Yamla (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the "clear winner" language even earlier, from September. That persisted until 28 November when I removed it for being unambiguous puffery. In addition to the above:

Gopakumar thinks it's appropriate tone to describe "5 lucky winners" in an encyclopedia article.
States as fact that an actor had fun on set without, say, any context, quotations, etc.
Here he describes a film as successful, when the source arrives at no such conclusion, only stating that the film (with it's one week box office figures) is "likely" to give Bollywood "a boost". "Success" would be determined after a full run, no? And maybe have some budget/gross figures for comparison?
"The weekend collection was an impressive ₹21.51 crore."
"The film showed an impressive growth in the weekend".
"Pink grossed around an impressive ₹6.9 crore (US$830,000) on first day in India."
From a BLP: "However Salman refused these allegations and refused to forgive him for the rest of his life" ... "The immaturedness in handling the press conference cost Vivek his film career, with no one offering him any film roles, and Aishwarya spliting with him".

The user doesn't seem aware of what the problem is, doesn't understand the linguistic issues I raised about ambiguous phrasing, and is defensive about the whole matter. If the user doesn't understand what the difference is between an opinion and a fact, and doesn't understand why loading opinions into articles and presenting them as incontrovertible facts might be problematic for a neutral encyclopedia, and doesn't understand why hyperbolic language would be a problem, I don't know how anyone could seriously entertain an unblock. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To MaxSem's comment in the decline, even though a source describes something as "clear winner" or "all-time blockbuster", these are subjective opinions, not facts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tanuj Mahashabde for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tanuj Mahashabde is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanuj Mahashabde (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Iqra Dude (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tanuj Mahashabde

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tanuj Mahashabde, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sheldybett (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tanuj Mahashabde for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tanuj Mahashabde is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanuj Mahashabde (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]