Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Vikram Vedha (tamil film) plot summary
Hi Cyphoidbomb, I wrote a plot summary for the Tamil film Vikram Vedha (as I've done for many other films before), but it keeps getting truncated down to 4-5 lines by nameless (IP address only) folks. It looks like they want to "mask out" the plot, presumably to get more people to see the film - not in the Wikipedia tradition. Just thought I'd give you a heads up.
cheers Frisco danconia (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Frisco danconia, I've added the article to my watchlist. FYI, film plot summaries should be between 400-700 words. The one at Vikram Vedha is a bit beefy at 940 words. The relevant guideline is WP:FILMPLOT. It's not entirely arbitrary, as overly-detailed plot summaries could be considered derivative works, which presents copyright concerns. As for the IPs, if the problem persists and I don't happen to see it on my own, please let me know and I'll protect the page or something of that nature. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Cyphoidbomb, thanks for your timely action! About the 940 words, I revised my write up as best I could but this neo-noir film has a complex plot with many intersecting elements; I will try to revise again, I also hope the Wiki process will invite additional edits which will further tighten the writeup. Thanks again! Frisco danconia (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Cyphoidbomb, they are back and the film plot is back to exactly one line. My last update (14:35 7/25/2017) was wiped out and there are a number of nonsense one-liners since. Offending IPs are 1.126.x.x and 210.187.x.x - warned several times - and a couple others. Thanks... FDA Frisco danconia (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Frisco danconia: - Restored here, and IP warned although they seem to be hopping. If it continues, the next step will be page protection. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: - Ok now the whole plot is gone! They are hopping IPs or working together somehow! FDA Frisco danconia (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: - The plot section is gone again (7/28, removed by a user who has been warned before). I am puzzled why someone would persist in doing this? This now appears to be vandalism. FDA Frisco danconia (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Frisco danconia: This is somewhat common for recently-released films, although the frequency of removal seems odd. Usually we only have one or two per new film. Depends on the film, I guess. This seems more like someone involved with the film trying to censor spoilers. Guessing aside, the most recent user has been warned and content has been restored. If they persist, I'll elevate accordingly. Next steps might be blocking the user or upping the article protection one notch. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Cyphoidbomb, they are back and the film plot is back to exactly one line. My last update (14:35 7/25/2017) was wiped out and there are a number of nonsense one-liners since. Offending IPs are 1.126.x.x and 210.187.x.x - warned several times - and a couple others. Thanks... FDA Frisco danconia (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
About Bigg Boss Telugu
I need some suggestions from you. Some of the problems occurred by Anonymous user 117.195.165.199 I fixed them but I want to ask you that what should I do to prevent these type of edits? Joshq1234 (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Joshq1234: If it's just a one-time event, we would treat it as vandalism, warn the user, and move on. If the user is hopping IPs, then we might consider another approach, like short-term page protection. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank You Joshq1234 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
A user
Can you check out this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brentford1889 the edits are just, some are correct while others are wrong. im sure this is him aswell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ardnashee2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 11:44, July 30, 2017 (UTC)
- @Crazyseiko: - I agree and have asked a CheckUser to look into it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Your recent reverts at N. T. Rama Rao Jr.
Just FYI – this seems to be persistent disruptive editing. I have opened a case at SPI here. Thank you for reverting, I hadn't got around to it yet. :) Have a nice day! –FlyingAce✈hello 16:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi FlyingAce, thanks for the note. If you think it's ducky, I don't mind indeffing both. That may interfere with the CU request, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, I won't be able to handle this at present... If it's still a dangling issue I can look at it in several hours. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Need some Help
@Cyphoidbomb: Hi! I need some help with the page Vijay Sethupathi. A user keeps adding the 'Devar' to the Father's name, but provides no references. Also his place of birth place has been edited but references suggest that he was born else where. If I revert the edits, it's just going to end up in an edit-war. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks! Adwaith s (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Adwaith s: Thank you for being conscientious about our edit-warring policy. The issue seems to have quieted down, so I don't know that there's anything to be done administratively. But if it flares up again, please let me know. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Sure will. Thanks! Adwaith s (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
My edits
Hi Cyphoidbomb, I would like to use this space to apologize to you and whomever I've managed to p**s-off about my edits on The List of South African Slang Words, etc. I've had some time to reflect on this and I'm sorry if they seemed disruptive to you, I never intended for that to happen. As you can see, i'm not very good at this "editing thing", as most of my edits are rash and overdone. I don't know how to get the reliable resources you want, because you don't accept Google or Wikipedia as a reliable resource, which is kinda an oxymoron. I'm just trying to do my part here as a contributor with the best of intentions. Although the article's name does specify slang "words" and not "phrases", I would like to point out that I've seen phrases included in there that i did not contribute to, and that the article is about "slang", which basically means that not all legitimate slang-terms have been officiated in a dictionary or thesaurus because new ones appear on a yearly basis (i.e. no real reliable source besides the people who use them). So I would like to ask you, if you feel that my edits are irrational or disruptive, then let us please work together constructively to improve on them, rephrase and/or restructuring them without necessarily removing them completely. Teach me how to use the correct sources, or when necessary help me out there. User:Nelatti (talk)
- @Nelatti: I appreciate your note. That probably wasn't easy to do. If I can help to better explain community policy to you, I'd be happy to do so. Wikipedia is touchy about "original research". Original research takes a few different forms, but some examples might be, "I know Celine Dion personally, and she told me that she was born on ___ date and that her first paid gig was at the ___ theatre." Or "I'm a brain surgeon and I assure you that the cutting edge treatment for depression is removal of the ___." Or in this case, "I'm South African and I hang with a lot of people who throw around a lot of slang." We need content to be verifiable, which means that things we personally experience or witness or understand to be true is not sufficient for inclusion unless it can be supported with sources. Other forms of original research would be the inclusion of our opinions or analyses into articles, like here. In this example, you explain that many people still import a specific vehicle (which is your personal understanding), you've asserted that X vehicle is still very popular, there's some weasel-wording to the effect of "many agreed", etc. So while you may absolutely be correct about a lot of this, the bottom line is that we need all submitted content to be attributed to reliable sources, so that people can verify them. Examples of reliable sources are major newspapers, magazines, books, and anything where there is a presumption of responsible editorial oversight. Same thing with the slang. You might be absolutely correct about the etymology of tawwe, but without references, the content can't be verified. And if you happen to be an Afrikaans slang prodigy, maybe you should be writing a book! Another caveat, is that slang comes and goes so quickly. We need to be sure we're only including time-tested, noteworthy additions. Noteworthiness is bolstered by references. Kids sit around fabricating slang terms for Urban Dictionary (which is an entertainment site, not an academic resource). We have to be better than Urban Dictionary, so our threshold for inclusion needs to be higher. (Again, references are key to this.) I think the above is quite a bit to parse, so I'll be quiet for the time being. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Thank You for responding, I'll take all that into consideration, but I still don't know how to add the references to the edits. On the "Original Research", that's where the oxymoron comes in; If Celine Dion told you she was born here __, and did this __ for a living, and you've got video evidence to back it up, then it can't really be considered fabrication of own research, because there's evidence directly from the true source of the topic (going back to my edits about the Kim Possible series), that's my point of view anyways. I don't use Urban Dictionary, cuz they've got no quality content. I also make it a point not to remove other users' edits that I personally don't agree with, I'll try to rephrase it if it's been done improperly, but that's where I draw the line. User:Nelatti (talk)
- @Nelatti: The simplest way (assuming the reference is online) is to use HTML ref markup with a link in between. Like:
- <ref>http://www.sample.com/page.html</ref>
- A more robust way, is to use the Citation tool that's built into the edit window. See this image. There are also templates like {{Cite AV media}}, which allow you to manually cite stuff like YouTube videos.
- To address your Celine Dion question, if we have a (non-copyright violation) video of her on YouTube or somewhere talking about where she was born, that's fine, we would use the Cite AV media template, probably. What I was saying, is that if some random yob like me adds or changes content proclaiming "I know Celine and she told me ___", that's not sufficient for our purposes because it can't be verified. a random reader can't go to the library and check out my brain. Also, people can lie, people can be mistaken, people can be lied to, etc. In the case of the brain surgeon, who knows if they're legitimately a brain surgeon? They could be an impostor, a quack, whatever. This is also why we don't typically accept assertions from unverified Twitter accounts. Too easy to pull off hoaxes. To give you another example, there are tons of kids TV articles where children have added all sorts of garbage. They mistakenly interpret puns based on their limited knowledge of popular culture, they draw conclusions like "Rudy stands next to Susie in the cafeteria, suggesting he probably has a crush on her" when there are tons of other explanations like, a storyboard artist randomly put Rudy next to Susie. I could give you thousands of examples if I had enough time. But in the interim, if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphiodbomb: Thanks, I'll try to use that more often. It was nice to actually have a civil conversation for once. Nelatti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15:28, August 10, 2017 (talk • contribs)
- @Nelatti: Likewise, and I assure you, it's nothing personal. Oh, one last thing, when you sign posts, please use four tildes. This will append your name and timestamp like this --> Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphiodbomb: Thanks, I'll try to use that more often. It was nice to actually have a civil conversation for once. Nelatti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15:28, August 10, 2017 (talk • contribs)
- @Nelatti: The simplest way (assuming the reference is online) is to use HTML ref markup with a link in between. Like: