User talk:Refined devil

Recent edit to Kottayam Kunjachan

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Prof. Mc (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Rajamanikyam 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: Rajamanikyam was changed by Refined devil (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882644 on 2015-08-08T19:39:21+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refined devil, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Refined devil! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blockbuster status

Hi, we don't use promotional language like "Blockbuster status" or "superhit status" in film articles. Bad grammar aside, this sort of promotional fluff belongs in the trades, not in an encyclopedia as you added here and [1]. Terminologies like "super hit", "blockbuster", etc are opinions and we do not present opinions as facts. If you have more questions about this, feel free to float a question by the Indian cinema task force. I'm also advising you to not submit unsourced content like this again. We're not interested in your personal evaluation of a film's success. This information needs to come from reliable sources. See WP:RS for information about this. Unsourced content can and will be removed. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I look through the rest of your edits, I find these changes in which you introduce clearly subjective and promotional fluff.

"The film was one of the greatest triumphs ever happened in malayalam cinema" - Subjective, promotional

"The protogonist Bellary Raja(Mammootty)'s humorous mannerisms, funny dialogues in the Trivandrum slang, and the costumes created a "trend" in Kerala." - Humorous is subjective. This is based on your personal observation, not on a reference. Constitutes original research

"The film critically and commercially gained positive response from cinemas and redefined the malayalam box office history" - Unsourced, promotional, subjective.

Content you submit must be written in a neutral tone. We strive for a neutral point of view at Wikipedia. Fawning over a movie to say how amazing it is, has no place here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to The King (1995 film). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diff: [2] Promotional language about "phenomenal success". References are insufficient as they are blogs, and one of them is a Wikipedia mirror. See WP:RS and please stop adding promotional content. These edits as well are problematic, because you're adding the opinion of the film's producer to support a claim of "success". This is inappropriate, because a producer is a primary source and would absolutely have a reason to inflate the facts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]