Page semi-protected

User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 13

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

Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 20



Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA edit.jpg Happy Maha Shivaratri!
Wishing you, your family, and your dear ones a very happy Maha Shivaratri! Keep yourself very happy and joyful, away from sorrows and worries in this moment, something which Nataraja teaches!

PS: I don't know whether you are aware of this festival or not, but i'm sure you will be happy with this gesture of WikiLove. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala, I'm not aware of this festival, but I always appreciate well-wishes, thank you. Happy holiday to you! Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop editing on things you don't know about

Reverting without knowledge is disruptive. Yes, wiki does use IMDB links in the case of working professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You should take your own advice to avoid editing on things you don't know about. WP:RS/IMDB, WP:RS, WP:TVFAQ all exclude IMDb as a reference because it is user-contributed. There is no exemption for "working professionals". But, since you didn't bother to note specifically what your complaint is or where this matter took place, it's a moot point. Good luck with your misguided anger. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Wait a second, are you referring to this reversion from November 2015?! Are you serious? You're bringing this up four months later? And without any context? Gimme a break. You're wrong. Read the links above. Unbelievable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't live on wikipedia like you. I am the animator they are writing about. I'm not angry at all, you are. (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC) I'm not angry, I was incredulous that you're bringing this up without context four months later. And simultaneously telling me that I know nothing about Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines and then criticizing me for living here, is obviously contradictory, because clearly I would know something. Anyhow, moving to more constructive avenues, information about living people has to be impeccably sourced, because we want to avoid any potential for defamation or prank edits. Now while you're claiming that you are the animator, and I'm happy to accept that for the purposes of this discussion, anything that goes into articles has to be impeccably sourced. I'll say broadly I don't think Wikipedia as a matter of community practice would retroactively refer to someone who was originally credited with Name A, as Name B. So if you were credited as David Brewster, my first inclination would be refer to you by that name in the article, because that's how you were credited. That seems to be supported by WP:BIRTHNAME, which reads, "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." That said, if this were a gender identity matter, which your IMDb bio might suggest, then I'd be happy to float a question on your behalf at WikiProject LGBT to see what the community preference is. I think though that it might be better if you created an account (not required, though) and approached them yourself so that you get the info first-hand. I won't do anything unless you ask me to. I think though that no matter what, we're going to need a reliable reference of some sort that explains the name change, and stuff like blogs or Twitter accounts are typically sketchy because they are user-generated. Verified accounts might work. And again, there's still the matter of WP:BIRTHNAME Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Here we go.
I don't live on wikipedia so I am going to bring it up when I'm here. I brought it up when I saw it.
It was not criticism ,it was a statement of fact. You live here and I don't. I only come to correct.
"That said, if this were a gender identity matter, which your IMDb bio might suggest" You think ? It does , doesn't it.
"I'd be happy to float a question on your behalf at WikiProject LGBT " Oh please do that, I need another opinion on my legal name and gender change. Apparently the courts are not enough .
"I think though that no matter what, we're going to need a reliable reference of some sort that explains the name change"
Oh gosh that is so hard. Need a copy of the court documents, my license? .Website
I doubt there are any websites that hold my personal drawings back as far as 2006 like this
Go do it. (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So have you done this yet ? (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC) The other alternative is to remove me completely. (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've asked WikiProject LGBT to assist, so you should probably follow up there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Great, where do I go to do that? (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Oops, found it, thanks. (talk)


Hai, I arranged cast as per credits in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsScientist (talkcontribs)

Please Explain, why you undid my edit? Please read carefully?

Fans needs this details. Age calculation between Shreya Ghoshal and her brother.


SG age 32 (after march 12) in 2016, SG age 31 in 2015, SG age 30 in 2014, SG age 29 in 2013, SG age 28 in 2012 (brother age 21).

28 - 21=7 years younger

From Shreya Ghoshal twitter status She said that ``happy 21 bday`` in 2012. So When Shreya Ghoshal was 28 then her brother was 21. Zafar24 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zafar24 - I didn't undo your edit, I changed it to make it less specific. The brother is not a public figure as far as I know, so why we need to advertise his age to millions of people is unclear to me. Saying that Ghoshal has a younger brother is sufficient. The difference in age is an insignificant detail that doesn't materially improve our understanding of Shreya Ghosal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi protection

Hi, thanks for protecting the page. But every time when the block expires/the page gets unprotected they come back. I filed an SPI, which was turned down by the clerks. Further to that, a request was made (on my behalf) at WP:ANB, but no action has been taken so far. This is a recurring problem. Vensatry (Talk) 18:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Vensatry - There's not a whole lot we can do other than semi your talk page. Some admins can perform range blocks, but it looks like he might be using different ISPs at times. If it happens after this block expires, let me know and I'll extend it for a bit longer. You might consider a do not feed the trolls perspective. If you're cursing his name and giving him attention that may only make him more prone to trying to irritate you. Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
What I'm asking is longer duration for the talk page and indef semi for other sub pages. You might want to check the talk history and User talk:Vensatry/Header. Vensatry (Talk) 19:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Vensatry, I've extended your talk page protection to a month. It's tricky with talk pages because we don't want to create a situation where you cannot be reached by other users. If you want an extension on the Header sub-page, please ask Tito. I don't want to step on his judgment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I understand that, but there seems to be no other way. I think Tito's on a break. Vensatry (Talk) 19:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Vensatry, he's responded. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Need help..

Hello. I have just begun my wikipedia journey and I will like to know from you how a wikipedia page can be protected from editing as recently when I edited the page of umpire S.Ravi by removing the abusive language against him and India somebody reedited the article in no time. You know the case as you have edited the page recently by removing the abusive language yourself and I noticed that you are an administrator on Wikipedia. Kindly help.. AnandRamrakhyani777 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi AnandRamrakhyani777, and welcome! The edit I reverted was an honest mistake by Wywyit. I think he restored an earlier version of the article, which contained the disruptive additions. I wouldn't worry about him. I've added the article to my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on it. If there's a significant amount of vandalism, I'll protect the article. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your very concerned effort. People like you are making me feel wikipedia to be a big family where everyone is helping this new member.... Hope that soon I shall become a matured family member and will contribute my best to Wikipedia after learning the basics... Thank you once again... AnandRamrakhyani777 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

PhysicsScientist comment

Before removing the columns, the section is narrow as each name is divided into two or three lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsScientist (talkcontribs)

PhysicsScientist, sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. Communication is crucial here. If other editors don't understand your changes, it's very likely that you will experience a great deal of resistance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for what I did. I won't do any mistake again.

I am sorry for what I did. I won't do any mistake again.PhysicsScientist (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Basics for wikipedia articles

Thank you for replying me in 24_(2016_film) Talk Page can you suggest some basics for users like me   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya durga reddy (talkcontribs) 17:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC) 

A probable sock

Hi, need an opinion in an issue. I saw your concern about Jo Bieson in the talk page of Kailash29792. I suspect user JO Bieson is a sock of User:Sm Sangeeth Sm77 (after his two failed socks User:Uploader & Solver and User:The U Editor). He created a fake GA review on Premam (Talk:Premam/GA1 is now deleted). After the block, he then renominated it using The U Editor. And here is the interesting part, Sm Sangeeth Sm77 created the article Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Score and other than a bot the article is edited by only 3 users - himself, his sock Uploader & Solver and our guy Jo Bieson. What a coincidence, right? And don't forget all these accounts are GA freaks and nominating "far ready" articles for GA. After his failed attempts on Premam, the new sock Jo Bieson shifted to other articles but "unfortunately" again spared a sock evidence by creating Premam (soundtrack) (also remember the TMNT:The Score created by Sm Sangeeth). I also invite Vensatry in this discussion. --Charles Turing (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turing - Good eyes, Charles. I've opened an SPI case. Please add any notes if you have any. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Charles Turing - I'm also curious if you have any thoughts/conspiracy theories on what motivates the "GA freaks". Why are some editors pushing so hard to get crappy articles to GA? Interested in your perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it's psychological and he is a teenager only 14 years old as per his user page. He might be trying to gather attention from other users. For example, in his final statement in the Premam GA review he claimed it as the "first Malayalam film to become a GA" (actually its Swayamvaram). Similarly in Drishyam GA review, he said it as "the first malayalam film after 2000s to become a GA". He is obsessed with the "GA icon", rather than developing a real good article. For that he is finding already developed articles by other users (Drishyam, Peruchazhi, Ustad Hotel, Lailaa O Lailaa etc). Bangalore Days was a bad choice, but wondering how it passed. That article surely questions the reputation of GA criteria, it should be delisted (sooner or later it definitely will). Charles Turing (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There are other evidences also. I have commented it in the SPI. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

regarding on block

Hi! am rahul aka (rockdwane). My question is y u people are blocking id's inspite of giving proper reliable source to wikipedia. I dont know where i did mistake. Its my new id, bt i dont like to block again by u. Could u suggest me? how to edit with reliable sources, bcz i want to become a good wikipedian thats all. I hope u answer my question, thanking u.... Rockdwane (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

See if i make any mistake leave me one msg before blocking. And tell me that where i did mistake. I hope u able to understand. C u again bye,, i am waiting for ur instant anwser., Rockdwane (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rockdwane, you haven't given me enough information to be able to answer you properly. Which account did you previously use? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Link spamming

Hey do you have an easy way to see when the links were added to an article? In the process of removing the spam I came across a few other domains, such as [ target=* (LinkSearch linked)],, and but I have no easy way of seeing if the links are actively being added aside from going through all those page histories. There's also this movie ticket selling website Thanks. Elaenia (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Elaenia, oh dear god--it never ends!! Thanks for cleaning up a lot of those punjabigrooves links. It was nice seeing far fewer of them when I did my batch. To answer your question, I'm not too familiar with all the anti-spam tools yet. Just started dipping my toe in it recently, but Beetstra was very friendly to me the last time I hounded him for information, so he might be able to help us both out with info. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb If you report your links to WT:WPSPAM or to the Spam-blacklist, and use a {{LinkSummary}} with the domain in your post (without 'http://' and 'www.' at the start, and stopping at the '.com' or other TLD), COIBot will pick up that edit, and save a report after some time. That report is linked from the template you added in that post, and lists details on the domain, and when it was added (it pulls from an 'own' database, created by m:User:LiWa3 (which is currently lagging due to someone running a high-speed bot cross-wiki, resulting in a large number of edits per minute to parse).
To refresh the post, use User:COIBot/Poke (only for users who have been granted use, to avoid abuse). Just add the LinkSummary-template with the domain to that list (clear it in a separate edit if it is already there) every time you need a fresh report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll poke them all five now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:Sage of the Six Paths?

An IPv6 account has been restoring the same copyvio plot summaries to List of Durarara!!×2 episodes which very minor changes to the wording.[1][2] Could this this look like a sock of User:Sage of the Six Paths to you? I've given the IP a copyvio warning after the second edit.[3] If you believe that this is a sock, do you think the page should receive some form of protection? —Farix (t | c) 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

TheFarix - I'll take a look. I'm pretty sure that he was editing both while logged in and while logged out at List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes. I remember having some problems with unsourced future dates coming from IPs, then after I semi-ed the page, he suddenly shows up with his autoconfirmed account. Some of the IPs were this one and this one. They geolocate to New Jersey. The IPv6 you are complaining about in those edits also geolocates to New Jersey, which is no coincidence. Ridiculous. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Note from Bef3481

Hello, Cyphoid. Thank you so much for your helpful message on my talk page! I'm not used to being treated so kindly! I will, indeed solicit your advice when needed, as I have, and although it is frustrating to see people reverting your edits based on opinion, condescension and ego trips. You are very right though, edit warring is not the answer... Thank you very much for not suspending my editing privileges. It seems to be the way these days, when people have an air of control and false sense of power they simply cannot stand to be wrong, all facts aside; and when someone doesn't know the rules properly due to lack of experience (or has never had the need to make use of an article's talk page) they are labeled as disruptive (utter nonsense), etc. There is not a thing I can do about that though; one is powerless over everything in life except their own actions/reactions. Can no one treat one an other like an equal anymore? I tried to be peaceful but many users (your company excluded) throughout my time on Wikipedia have proven to me that being nice gets you nowhere, fast. I was bullied a lot on my other account when I was new (had to create another because my computer shut down from a power outage while I was changing my Wiki password) At least that has been my experience ever since I helped to create the Criminal Minds (season 11) page last year. I'm a university student and haven't had the time to learn the ropes of verifiability; I simply see what is acceptable in other edits, and try to apply those same parameters to my own edits. But this experience has taught me that a little time spent learning the rules can go quite a long way, and if I know the rules well enough to edit within the criteria of verifiability, I won't have to interact with hostile users. Once again, thank you so much for your kindness, Cyphoid. You are truly a classy breath of fresh air, and I'll take your advice to heart. Sincerely and with much gratitude, Brendan. Bef3481(2) (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Bef3481(2) - I'm sure that this will bring you no satisfaction, but I have a great deal of respect for both Drmargi and FavreFan1. They are both here to do what's right by the community, they are knowledgeable and they are good resources. When I see them edit, I know I don't have to scrutinize them because I trust them to make strong decisions. Maybe when the heat dies down a little you might notice some of that. :) I suppose my point is to suggest a minor change of perspective. It's tough when you're new to an established community--maybe going in with the attitude of wanting to learn the ropes may empower other editors to want to be the good guy and help you out. That's what worked for me back when I started here. Getting into heated, contentious debates wasn't the right approach for me, and I realized that in any setting, there are always people who know more than I do. Being flexible and letting others lead is sometimes a good approach when you're learning about a new culture. Anyhow, lecture over. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Cyphoid, would you do me a favor? Would you mind reviewing the edit history of List of Person of Interest episodes for the last 36 hours or so and look at the edits by User:Bef3481(2)? There's also some discussion on the talk page. I'm trying to decide if it needs to go to AN3. Farvefan and I have tried to explain reliable sourcing and verifiability, not to mention policies governing Twitter to him, but he just keeps insisting his edits are reliable. Instead, as seems to be the way of it these days, he's claiming that we are singling him out (utter nonsense), etc. Can no one handle being edited maturely these days? Anyway, he is well past 3RR, but I'm not sure it will stand up at 3RR given his odd editing patterns -- you'll see what I mean. Any insight will help. Grazie! --Drmargi (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the helping hand. Hopefully, he'll get the picture and step back from the "I am right... " posture, and the fan site approach. --Drmargi (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Monster High: Escape from Skull Shores discussion

I am inviting you to take part in this discussion to determine the fate of Monster High: Escape from Skull Shores. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


This user's contributions have been mostly including links from TollySpice, a non reliable source, to major Telugu film articles. What do you think of this? Any suggestions? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala - Thanks for the heads-up. I noticed him and warned him not to keep spamming articles, and it looks like he continued after my warning, so I've indeffed him. If you notice this domain pop up again, please let me know, or you can report it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone else here is doing the same thing what Rohith did. That is something suspicious, as this account was created a day after Rohith was blocked by you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

regarding on editing

Sorry, actually it was written as "With the sequel having materialised this year, the film will now go on floors from March 24." they had written like this. that is what i did edit and i edited by changing some appropriate it not correct formate "film will go now on floors from march 24,"? Rockdwane (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Rockdwane - No. "Go on floors" is slang. It's not proper English. "The film is scheduled to begin production on 24 March" would be the correct way to say it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
One movie is missed in filmography. How should i add that movie name in to that filmography?. should I submitt any reliable sourcess even in to filmography to add that film name? Rockdwane (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes

Hello. Please remove the page protection to List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes. The page is now not getting edited because no one can edit it. You only put the page protection on because I edited it. You can't do that unless it is constant vandalism. You said this was vandalism. I provided reliable sources. Just because I'm an anonymous user, doesn't mean I'm vandalizing pages. I can edit List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes with reliable content and provide sources. Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit so you can't really go round blocking everyone from editing this page just because I edited it with a reliable source. You said, when you put the page protection up, "This page has been protected to prevent vandalism. Sock puppetry of Sponge58." Me putting sources in, is NOT vandalism. It is reliable editing. (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC) - Are you the editor behind the Sponge58 account? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, Hello. Yes, I shall admit that I am the editor behind Sponge58. I have learnt my lesson from that and from now on, I am only going to edit articles with correct information accompanied with a reliable source if needed. I am a bit confused as to why you put a page protection on List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes only a little while after I made a new edit WITH a reliable source. That seems very strange to me. Adding sources is not vandalism and you clearly stated that you're protecting the page due to vandalism. (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC) - I don't understand what you are confused about. The article was protected to prevent you, Jake Uniacke, from editing it. You, who was also behind the accounts Cartman810, and Sponge58, are not welcome to edit at Wikipedia so long as you have a blocked account. It's not permanent, but it's indefinite. You were blocked indefinitely for disruptive behavior like copyright violations (which you continued as Sponge58 even after the Cartman810 account was blocked for this--so you obviously didn't learn your lesson after the first block). Your creation of useless self-promoting articles about your amateur projects also factored into the Sponge58 block. You've also been blocked for sockpuppetry, i.e. the misuse of multiple accounts to evade previous blocks, like Cartman443, Cartman587, Sponge58, and you are currently engaged in sockpuppetry by editing as an anonymous IP user. Your only remedy is to request that the Cartman810 account be unblocked, but considering you are still engaging in sockpuppetry, apparently with no comprehension that what you're doing goes against Wikipedia policies and is dishonest, it's going to be a hard-sell. Note also that any edit made by you while you are blocked can be reverted on sight by any editor without regard for whether it was constructive of not. If you're going to waste other editors' time, be prepared to have your own time wasted. Life is short. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, I'm not wasting other users time. I'm simply making a statement about a pointless page protection. Why should I be prevented from editing? List of 4 O'Clock Club episodes is a current active article that is no longer being edited because I'm usually the one who constructively edits it. Without me, some random troll could add false information just like a previous anonymous IP user who kept putting 'Joel Chigwende' as the writer for every episode that is currently on the list. I have learnt my lesson from the block so you can't tell me what I have and what I haven't learnt. Constructive edits are needed in articles and without me, this specific article is no longer being edited. And then people moan for articles not being edited. You can tell them why - they won't care. They'll want the article to be edited so they can see what each episode is about. I am sorry for any inconvenience I have caused. But you have caused great inconvenience towards me and I don't appreciate it. (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC) - I've explained in sufficient detail why the page is protected, and why you aren't currently welcome to edit here, and what your prospective remedies are. You continue to make edits at Wikipedia [4][5] in spite of not currently being welcome to do so. This constitutes sockpuppetry and demonstrates that no, in fact, you do not understand Wikipedia policies or why you've been blocked in the past. It also demonstrates that you don't care what the rules are. This is a community encyclopedia, not the Jake Uniacke show. Either abide by the rules or go play somewhere else. In the interim, and I'll only explain this one last time, your remedy is to request an unblock via the Cartman810 account, where you will need to convince a reviewing admin that you understand why you were blocked, and you will need to provide assurance that you will not make the same mistakes again. However, considering you're still engaged in sockpuppetry, it's doubtful you'll be unblocked any time soon. You might consider the standard offer instead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, okay. I understand now. But how can I abide by the rules if you're not giving me the chance to do so? I'm not trying to have a go at you but I would like to know why you're telling me to abide by the rules but yet you're not giving me the chance. I am very sorry for what I have done. Yes I do know this is a community encyclopedia and that's what I am treating it as - I know damn well this isn't about me. I never said it was, so please don't get cocky to me because it doesn't work. I will no longer continue to pester you about this matter. (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC) - Who's not giving you a chance? I told you weeks ago to request an unblock at Cartman810, which you chose not to do. Since then, you've continued editing without permission to do so. Those are decisions you made, not me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Return of the sock

After Jo Bieson, User:Sm Sangeeth Sm77 has come out with another sock User:DuplixD (not linking this). I knew he would return, look what I had found - log. --Charles Turing (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turing - Good catch! Nice eagle-eye you got there. Face-smile.svg I'll take care of it from here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Charles Turing - Filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DuplixD. Two things: If you want to link to a user page without notifying the user, you can use {{noping}} like {{noping|Charles Turing}}. And, if you discover more socks of his, you are free to revert them on sight per WP:REVERTBAN. These reversions are exempt from WP:3RR. That's at your own discretion, though. If you think the edit improved something, you're not required to revert it. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alex Etel

Hi, Cyphoidbomb! Could you please help me out? Some IP has been changing British/English actor Alex Etel's birth year. His official website states he was born in 1994, not 1992. --ACase0000 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

ACase0000 - I've given him a final warning. If he makes any more unsourced numerical changes, please let me know and I'll block him. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I will! Thank you! --ACase0000 (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Best Friends Whenever#Episode count

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Best Friends Whenever#Episode count. Here we go again. I know you have fun with these, so figured I'd invite ya to the discussion. :) Amaury (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Complain about a habitual offender

Sir, I would like to make a complain about User talk : ARNAB22. He has a history of making unsourced edits on Wikipedia, and as I have found from his Talk page, you have also severely warned him in the past. Today, about 30 minutes ago, I had given him a warning and now I find that he has simply ignored it and also deleted it from his Talk page. U can find my warning from the history of his Talk page. Plz read the warning that I had given him to understand the type of unsourced edits that he makes. I request you to block this user and undo all his previous edits. Thanks. (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, looking at the user's contribution history, the last time he edited the Bollywood article was over a month ago, so I don't know what purpose blocking him would serve. Blocks are intended to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, not to be used as punishment. Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. When this happens, it's widely considered proof that they have read and understand the warning. What I'd recommend is this: If you think the SRK photo is unnecessary, remove it, explain briefly in your edit summary, then open a discussion on the article's talk page as a backup. "In this edit I removed the image of SRK because of X, Y and Z" If he were to return to the Bollywood article and restore the image without discussion, that would be disruptive, because you've given him two opportunities (on his talk page, and on the article's talk page) to express his position. Barring that, however, there's little I can or should do at present. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

regarding on creating page

I would like create pages. Could u plz help me that how should i create the pages? Rockdwane (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Rockdwane - The best way for new users to do this is through the articles for creation process. This will give you time to build an article and properly establish a subject's notability (very important!) before the article goes live, with other Wikipedians giving you feedback along the way. If you take shortcuts through article creation, the odds that the article will be deleted are quite high. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Bef, again.

Cyphoid, Bef's latest antics with titles from unverified Twitter accounts at List of Person of Interest episodes lead to the following edit to his sandbox [[6]], and it's very troubling edit summary. I'm not sure what policy might come into play, but it's disturbing enough to draw your attention to it. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That was beautifully handled, and by that I mean the message on his talk page. It's a template for how to lay down the law but be positive at the same time! --Drmargi (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Drmargi - Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for unblocking me, Cyphoid. And as far as Favrefan and User:Drmargi, I understand if you would rather not interact with me, but I do owe you an apology, big time. I am very sorry to you for my words, even though I never intended for them to be seen. I feel much like Sulaiman Khan, the CEO who was "doxed" in POI episode 4-19, all the private, nasty emails he sent had been made public by Samaritan... The words I used were never intended for either of you to see; so this is much like you having read my mind at one of its darkest moments. However you feel about me is your business, but I would like you both to know that I didn't mean what I said. My venting which was stupidly assumed to be forever private, does not represent my true feelings and it was to psych myself up to speak respectfully in one of the only ways I know how. You were right to report it. I hope you can accept my sincerest apology; if not, I understand if you'd prefer to keep your interaction with me to a bare minimum. Thanks again to Cyphoid for making me aware that my sandbox is not an infinitely private black box, and, in its entirety, can not only be seen by Administrators, but by other users. You are truly a proven mediator, Cyphoid; it is no wonder you're an Admin of this great site! Bef3481(2) (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Bef3481(2) - I hope things calm down for you. Please note my comments earlier. Drmargi and Favre1fan93 are respected editors who are genuinely here to help, not to cause you grief. If you can get past this hiccup, I think you'll find that they are very easy to get along with. I hope anyway. Sometimes negative stuff like this has a way of lingering, but I hope not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that advice, Cyphoid. I hope so, too. I am, believe it or not, an easy-going person, but sometimes a bit of persecution complex can get the better of me. I'd like nothing more than to get along with every other editor. If possible, I'd like to continue on (with respect to the editors Drmargi and Favrefan) as if this never happened. Yes, it is unrealistic; if I were them I'd be pretty angry with (and probably more than a bit disturbed) by me. Anyhow, my behavior will have changed, but they have no obligation to forgive me so I won't get my hopes up; I'll just make sure my behavior is dignified and of the Wikipedia standard. :) My goal is the same as theirs: to become a respected editor who is genuinely here to help make pages more accurate, within the parameters of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; the problem is that I need to get over my gigantic ego and stop lashing out when corrected/reverted and thinking I'm being personally attacked when, in fact, I'm merely being corrected by a user who has far more editing experience than myself! Definitely something to work on. I was wondering, may I delete the block from my talk page, if not than at least may I delete the disgusting words of mine that were quoted to make the blocking argument? It's not to undermine you in any way, I just don't want those words to be associated with me in social media (since my account is tangentially associated with my Twitter account thanks to previous reckless editing). I was told by Drmargi that I cannot delete the post of another editor on my page, especially an admin, a statement with which I definitely agree! However, I also saw that you told someone they are allowed to delete a warning (don't know if it applies to blocks and the quotes used to support them) on their talk page as long as the warning has been heeded and action has been taken to ensure the lesson has been learned. Is there a way I can get those barbaric words off of my talk page without breaking the rules? If not, its fine; I deserve it, but if possible, I'd love to know a way. Thanks again for giving me a second chance, --Brendan F. Bef3481(2) (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

about Pooja gandhi wikipedia

Hello! its me Rockdwane. I want to clarify about pooja gandhi wikipedia... She was facing insufficient reliable sources in her article, now i am given reliable sources her up to 99%. i think that i provided almost currect and genuine sources. If i made any mistake in that. Mistakes might happened withougt my attention, plz let me know that. And even so many celebrities facing lack of reliable sources. So once u check and tell me whether it is currect or wrong what i edited there. Later i try to provide sources another one. Thanking you... Rockdwane (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think this website qualifies as RS? Besides, I found no sources stating it is unreliable, untrustable or notorious for giving inaccurate information. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kailash29792, sites like these never strike me as meeting WP:RS. To me it looks like another faceless blog. Who runs it? I go to their About us page and it tells me nothing. Actually, it tells me a little, they repeat each of the following sentences twice, which suggests they pay very little attention to copyediting, i.e. there's likely no clear editorial oversight, and/or certainly not the oversight you'd expect from a professional journalism outlet:
  • Know what your favorite celebrities are up to, get the latest news on new movie releases or check out on filmy gossip. Never look beyond us for the best audio songs, videos, accurate movie reviews and movie exclusives.
  • What makes us special? It’s the fact that our news is reliable and the fastest. Our Film News, Reviews, Gallery and Hot updates come straight out of sources close to the Industry. For more than a decade, Chitramala is the first to bring you all the latest updates on the happenings in the Indian film industry.
  • Entertainment on the go – yeah, we promise you that.. Our Chitramala mobile app enables live access to entertainment, for the film lovers – anyplace and anytime!! Follow us on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter and check out our latest high-quality videos on Youtube. All the latest film news and entertainment updates guaranteed to reach you first – right here at Chitramala. Don’t miss it!
From their Contact us page: "Fill out my online form." Ah, so it's one guy? Since we have so many problems in the Indian cinema world with spam and financial data fudging, my instinct is always to assume that they're not a reliable source unless, as TheRedPenOfDoom used to say, they have an established reputation for fact-checking. That's a really solid metric, I think. Hope that helps, and sorry for my delay in responding. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

about vandalism

Hello! i am rockdwane i would like know about that how to protect wikipedia page. I am wating for ur reply. Thanking U... Rockdwane (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Rockdwane Which page is in need of protection? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Rangitaranga movie facing disruptive editing. Rockdwane (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Rockdwane: You can request page protections at WP:RPP. Amaury (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Rockdwane - I don't see enough recent vandalism to warrant page protection. We don't protect pages unless there's a strong reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pending Unblock Request

Hi, CB. Hope you don't mind me contacting you about this, but a user who was blocked for making legal threats a while ago is still waiting for their unblock request to be reviewed after they withdrew their threats. Seems like maybe it got overlooked. See here. Regards. Amaury (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

regarding on Dandupalya movie

Hello! this is rockdwane, my question is why should we add "estimation" before the collection inspite of giving proper reliable dources regarding on collection. Thanking U... Rockdwane (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Rockdwane, reliable sources of not, all box office values for Indian films are estimates, not unimpeachable facts. Each site, be it Hungama or or IBT, etc., has their own methodology for calculating gross figures. No reliable site is more reliable than another reliable site. With all the corruption in Indian cinema financial data, it's important to make this clear, including for readers unfamiliar with Indian films. See this archived discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank u so much for the information. Bt in my indian languages, "boxoffice india" and "hungama" only consider mostly bollywood and tollywood movies. Other than this two languages, They wont at all establish rest of the indian languages widely. While we must consider regional filmibeat or reputed papers like Deccan Herald, ToI, IBN live and some of the relevant sources to add.
Thanking U..
Because Of that reason only i am providing more than one reliable sources... if i make any mistake plz let me know that. Then i try to correct. Rockdwane (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

... for all the encouragement you gave me during the past week, and also for the scripts that I shamelessly copied from you. See you at the AIV, ;-) Widr (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Widr No probs! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Original run"

What exactly is this term on infoboxes supposed to mean? Is it the dates where the episodes were premiered on television (i.e. no reruns), or is it the "original" run of episodes that most television viewers remember (in other words, no episodes "burned off" afterthoughts or leftovers on different channels later on)?

It seems the Firefly (TV series) article follows the latter concept, listing the series original run as being in 2002 on Fox only (not including the episodes burned off in 2003 on the Sci-Fi channel). But the Invader Zim article seems to follow the former idea, chosing to included the episodes burned off in 2006 on Nicktoons Network as part of the "original run". Which is more correct?--2601:980:8000:3F82:D4C:2C8:81E3:5371 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

2601:980:8000:3F82:D4C:2C8:81E3:5371 I think your instinct to ask WikiProject Television is the best approach, and I would defer to the community for an answer. Although it may cause some confusion, I don't know that it's entirely unreasonable to list episodes that are burned off, so long as they still represent the first US airings. On the other hand, some enthusiastic editors go a bit overboard with data in the infobox and in some cases it might be wiser to leave this field blank and direct readers to a section that explains the nuances. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

List of Mrs. Brown's Boys episodes

Dear Cyphoidbomb, I have took into account the copyrighted episode summaries on the episodes, however I fail to see why they are prohibited from being used in the summaries and I have seen other TV shows have summaries used from either the official website or websites giving summary of the episode. The original captions used gave good summaries of what happened in the episodes and now many are blank and empty and isn't everything referenced on Wikipedia copyrighted in some way anyway? Many thanks, - Jackstarrzz

(talk page stalker) It's one thing to have sources for episode air dates, production codes, and viewers. However, sourced or not, copying and pasting text from another website is called plagiarism. Amaury (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Jackstarrzz, this is a fairly basic concept. All prose content, summaries, song, scripts, books, newspapers, magazines, etc. unless otherwise released to the public domain, (for example through a Creative Commons license,) are protected by copyright once they become published. See Berne Convention. This includes episode summaries. If you write a blog post, it's copyrighted. If somebody created their own blog and appropriated your content as though it was their own, you might be a bit pissed about that. Even if they attributed you, but copied whole paragraphs, that might irk you. There is a concept of fair use, but fair use doesn't cover building the bulk of an article on lifted content, which is what you are proposing. To avoid this problem, the film and television WikiProjects prefer that all summaries be written from scratch in the editor's own words. Now data, like dates and numbers, typically cannot be copyrighted, because they are not usually considered creative works. Titles, too. That's why we can freely list episode titles for TV shows. Note also that photographs are almost always considered copyrighted as well. If you intend to upload images, please be sure that you are doing so within the scope of our copyright policies. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


Hello, Cyphoidbomb. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

about wikipedia photos

Hello! i added some celebrity photos of wikipedia. but few of them persisting to upload. see if it is more resolution its not getting uploaded, that time what should i do? How should i decrease size of photo to add? otherwise is there any method to add?.thanking u... Rockdwane (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please review this page

@Cyphoidbomb: Hi dear, Can you review this page List of songs recorded by Shaan. Please note that the list is very long that's why the page is in under construction. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafar24 (talkcontribs)

Zafar24 - Where are the references? List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga, a Featured List, has references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: dear, check this page List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. The reference is optional in lists pages because there are films/albums articles already written and people can check there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafar24 (talkcontribs)
Zafar24 - Optional? Please point me to the content guideline that says that references in list articles are optional. I'll wait. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Dear, I said optional because if people really need the sources then they will click on Film/Album name. Here is another example where there is no references please just see this List of songs recorded by Kumar Sanu.

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Couldn't resist laughing after coming across this edit of yours. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Cyphoidbomb!

Thought I'd just say hi to a random user for no reason. So, hello! :) (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Cyphoidbomb will reply here for a minute! -- (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Faceless blog - what makes a blog reliable source?

In Kadhalum kadanthu pogum, you have removed the reference from saying it is a faceless blog. What makes "star views" or "movie crow" (links to them in the article exist) a reliable source, while GCinemas is not? GCinemas is posting neutral/unbiased reviews of movies and they do not spam. Could you please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickwick (talkcontribs) 18:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Stickwick, thanks for your note. I didn't vet any of the other sites, I only removed a site that was clearly being spammed, and that serves no value as a reference. Any random person with an internet connection can start a blog and claim to be an expert in any field. This is why the community has decided not to use blogs as references. We don't even consider IMDB as reliable for this same reason. See WP:RS and WP:UGC. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, Thanks. I still have some questions. Please clarify. 1) Do you think GCinemas was being spammed or GCinemas was spamming? 2) What is the parameter that says a site like 'StarViews' is more reliable than 'GCinemas'? 3) Hypothetically, if GCinemas site looks like Star views/Movie crow and gives movie news/gossips etc and then post the reviews too, would you then consider it as a reliable source? I genuinely want to understand how this vetting works? 4) Who decides that the critics posting the reviews are the experts in their fields? For that matter, are the critics doing reviews (sometimes so biased) in Behindwoods/ views/Movie crows experts?
I requested GCinemas to add their links to Wiki, as they do unbiased reviews and they don't even have a single 'spam' ad in their site / or post silly gossips. They are focussed on doing only reviews. They chose 'blog' for the convenience. Then I came to know that you have removed their edits. So I really want to understand the process here and help GCinemas to become a reliable source? Since you are one of the senior members of Wiki community, your suggestions are very much appreciated.
Stickwick - The best answer to your question involves experience that you don't presently have and that I can't properly present to you. Indian cinema articles are a hotbed of vandalism, rings of paid editors, promotion, corruption in the presentation of financial data, spammers, etc. is a site that I just removed from a number of articles today. is a site that I just added to the spam blacklist. The quickest answer is that a site needs to have an established reputation for fact-checking and a clear editorial policy. Mainstream, established sites like The Hindu, Hindustani Times, Times of India, International Business Times, are favored, because they have established reputations for fact-checking and are under clear editorial control, even if we can often find fault with their information. Journalists go to school to learn about journalistic ethics. Random bloggers do not necessarily adhere to this step. Neither of the two sites linked above communicate that any known journalists are involved, neither does From what I can tell, only has 1 year of posts. How could they build an established reputation in that period of time? As noted, WP:UGC is the relevant guideline, and more succinctly, we don't care what random people have to say about films. Everybody has an opinion. We only care what professionals in the field of entertainment journalism have to say. there's no indication of who is running, or what credentials they have as entertainment journalists. As to your question about who was spamming, I don't know if it was someone related to (although this typically is the scenario, because people want to drive traffic to their own sites), but it doesn't really matter, since the result was that a number of links were added without regard for our reliable sources guidelines.
And since you asked, I'm going to cut StarViews too for the same reason: Faceless blog. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I will convey this to GCinemas and add more information about their site, authors etc. I also reckon sites like MovieCrow and BehindWoods neither have any clear editorial policy nor they have any credentials to be expert critics. But their references are still there. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC) - It's been very difficult to control them all, and we add sites to the spam blacklist as necessary. Behindwoods does get a lot of mentions from mainstream publications, which tends to improve its appearance as a reliable source, but I wouldn't personally use them as a reference because I prefer mainstream sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
MovieCrow too should be considered as faceless blog, if you use the same metrics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

I already notified the blocking admin, but he hasn't edited for several days now. The blocked user in question appears to engaged in proxy editing.[7][8] Please refer to User talk:Vjmlhds#Open response for additional information. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 01:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp - Looks like Ohnoitsjamie got it. I was in the process of leaving a warning when the user was blocked again with talk page access revoked. Totally preventable, but I think we're dealing with some impulse control issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I cannot disagree w/ your assessment. Thanks for taking a look. Levdr1lp / talk 02:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


I think he is a sockpuppet of User:Padmalakshmisx based on his editing and communication style. What do you think? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

bhaijaan - you are being abusive

This is too much, in intro section we dont have to add references, when there is citation in the article, kindly stop your abusive behavior, and stop sending silly messages, what do you think about my edits, I cant understand? in intro section we dont have to add in line citations, if reference is provided else where. I may have to report your behavior to arbitration committee, give respect and take respect, do you think i dont know basics of wikipedia, do you think only u know everything, silly nonsense. Vakthruthva (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

do not message me every time I edit wikipedia, I am not bothered about that article bhajrangi bhaijaan. Do not message me, I repeat Do not message me, I repeat Do not message me . Vakthruthva (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC).

Do not message for what? Nobody bothers you man. And shut up you goofy silly Shitvak! -- (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Take this reference - and stop abusing people repeatedly. Vakthruthva (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC).

Vakthruthva Did we need three unique discussions for this? I'm condensing into one discussion. You claim to be familiar with Wikipedia basics. Firstly, I'm unclear on how that could be possible for someone who's been editing here for a month, but assuming you have prior experience, you shouldn't have problems adding references. In these edits you added no references. Your counter-argument "in intro section we dont have to add references, when there is citation in the article" is irrelevant, because you didn't bother to put references elsewhere in the article. Further, per MOS:LEAD there is no blanket rule that the lede should not be referenced. On the contrary, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should ... be carefully sourced as appropriate." As for your addition of the reference on my talk page, that's very nice of you, but it belongs in the article, not on my talk page.
Let's make something else clear: You are not unimpeachable. If you make problem edits, the community is at liberty to let you know about these problems. Getting pissy about it and describing it as "abusive" is asinine. If you don't want members of the community to contact you to point out problems (as you've ironically done to other users like here), then be sure your edits are consistent with our established guidelines and policies. If this is above your skill set, you may find more joy in another hobby.
Lastly, if your account is a sock of Padmalakshmisx, you are not welcome to edit at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I dont have any problem adding references, first understand that, I am the one who is constantly fixing references. I am not a sock puppet, this Kailash is obsessed with padmalakshmi, and he accuses every one with that Vakthruthva (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
check the references that I have added in bajrangi bhaijaan and write, dont talk rubbish, Vakthruthva (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
arey little joker, I have added the references first in the article of bhajrangi, and then messaged what I have added, because you dont have common sense. Vakthruthva (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
1) Since this is all part of the same discussion, replying in new sections is unhelpful. 2) Re: I dont have any problem adding references You clearly had a problem adding references in these edits. That's the entire basis for my cautionary note. Had you done that initially, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
use common sense, you have to look for edits which are facts first, from other persons point of view, it is quite natural that the film Bhajrangi Bhaijaan received popular film award NFA, which is already cited in the main article, if you think that it is not supported by references, you should tag citation needed, you should not delete it, you dont even have the ability to think, it is really abusing from your side, with sense less messages posted in my talk page every 3-4 hrs. Vakthruthva (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Deflection of responsibility. The burden is yours to add references when adding content. That is common sense. It's cute that you have an ideal that other editors should be adding CN tags, but this needlessly creates more work for other editors when (I repeat) the burden is yours to add references when adding content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Sorry! i didnt get, actually i came to know that if it is lengthy then we should copy and paste bt not everything. Thats what i did. Bcz as i observed even so many senior editors did same what i did now, thats all. Thats y i was asking u always that if i make any mistakes plz let me know that. Bt now u r suddenly telling like this. See recently i got appreciated by 'DLP bot'. Bt u r scolding me about copy paste. Extreamly tell me, what should i do now? Rockdwane (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Rockdwane - I don't understand what you're asking, sorry. You may not add content you copy/paste, which is why you received the warning. There are some exceptions, for instance, if you are presenting a short, direct quotation. "John Doe of Hindustani Times described the film as 'the most boring romantic-comedy of 2016'"[1], but you may not copy prose the way you did it. If you're claiming that senior editors are doing what you did, I'd sure like to take a look at those edits, because I'm skeptical--people who plagiarise content don't typically last long enough around here to become senior editors.
DPL bot didn't "appreciate" you. DPL bot is a software robot that was telling you that you made a mistake, which I have fixed here. In this edit you added a link to Sai Kumar, but as you can see, this is a disambiguation page, a page that lists a number of people named Sai Kumar, not the specific Sai Kumar you were trying to link to. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I saw your message, and the reason I stated the box office was worldwide was because some people have been editing it so it it is only India's earnings. Thank you for informing me, though.

Notneha (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User: Vjmlhds

Vjmlhds has been changing the Antenna TV program page in the way I set it up previously. This person and I have been exchanging changes on the Antenna TV page back in January. Just recently, this person changed the entire thing as if he or she owns and controls the Antenna TV page. Please have this person stop making the changes his or her way on the Antenna TV program page. Wikipedia pages are meant for everyone to contribute. With Vjmlhds' makeover changes, it takes away the debut of the television series and the upcoming shows.

Vjmlhds wants to organized the Antenna TV page his or her way; and I only edit the Antenna TV page where the person who started, created and the Wikipedia person worked very hard making the Antenna TV page well-organized.

It is not fair for me and to the person for the hard work and to the other Wikipedia people for the corrections and contributing by adding information to the Antenna TV program page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbears22 (talkcontribs)

WP: V-response

I have seen the end credits on Nickelodeon and it also stated that Ciro Nieli had developed the show just like I double-checked in the credits to some episode that I watched on Nickelodeon. If you don't believe me, I suggest you watch the credits on one of their episodes that can be viewed on the official Nickelodeon website. This was to back up what Ciro Nieli e-mailed me. I had no idea that this would be considered unsourced. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Rtkat3 - I've reverted my edit, since I did find "Developed by" in a S4 episode. "Developed by" does not, however, appear in S1. Had you said in your episode summary that you were referencing episode credits, we would not be having this conversation. Rather, you chose to mention email correspondence for some reason known only to you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I did not noticed that they didn't do the "developed by" part until this current season. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Rishika.dhanait's sock?

Hi! The article Ganvesh was deleted by you as WP:CSD#G5 as creation by subject user. Am not sure if it was directed created by the subject account or someone else that you suspected to have created it. I recently received request from a new account to recreate the article. Also, @Vivvt: received same request from an IP. Sufficient WP:DUCK?! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, good eye! Thanks for the tip.  Blocked and tagged Gave you credit in the SPI. Keep up the fantastic work! Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought that there won't be any need to file to case. Hence approached you directly instead of following the procedure. Would follow the SPI next time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Dharmadhyaksha, although it's more work, it's good to create the SPI report so that we have a growing understanding of the person's behavior along with examples. This makes it easier to draw conclusions in the future. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

About my edit from "Ghilli" from "5rtfgvb"

I'm sorry, but it must have offended you when I called a Tamil movie "Ghilli" a "blockbuster" but it is actually true because many websites call it a "Blockbuster" since it fared very well. I must have hurt you but in no way did I mean say that "Ghilli" is better than "Okkadu". I was just stating facts and apparently I see that you like tollywood so you won't accept the fact that "Ghilli" did better at the Box office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5rtfgvb (talkcontribs)


I see that apparently you seem to have nothing to do but correct others. You can block my account but don't act like you own wiki or something. This is a place for us learn about something more in detail. I see that you seem to bother others a lot. And I don't think you can tell me what to write or do. By the way there are tons of more articles where "Blockbuster" and "Super hit" are used. You can torture me all you want but I got a life besides telling everyone what is Right or Wrong. Whereas, you don't. BYE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5rtfgvb (talkcontribs) 19:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Academic value

You know "gaand me ched" has a lot of academic value ;) -- (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC) - This is the English Wikipedia. I don't know what you're saying. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
it meanz asshole has a lot of academic value you know it you do you do c'mon la la lala iam 74 years old I am not immature my hormones are ok thanks for asking -- (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


I still believe what I did is right. Stop, bothering me because you are making this into a problem. Anyway, I will be making another accounts and don't try to annoy me there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5rtfgvb (talkcontribs) 21:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

5rtfgvb Your belief is irrelevant and wrong. If you create other accounts to continue your disruptive editing, they will be blocked on sight. Using multiple accounts to add disruption is a violation of policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you are NOT the HEAD nor OWNER or FOUNDER but just a contributor/administrator. So you don't get to decide that my writing is "disruptive" since you seem to talk like "a steaming pile of crap". Also, who said I will make accounts to hurt Wikipedia. I love using Wikipedia but its people like you who want some sort of control that ruin our community. I want you to know that many users including me find you constantly disturbing the peace of the online community. I know it's your job to correct our work but you can not tell us what to write because where is our freedom to add content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5rtfgvb (talkcontribs) 21:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

5rtfgvb Since you seem to want to continue this discussion, I'm happy to keep educating you. I have ample experience editing at Wikipedia to recognize and differentiate between quality content and disruptive content. When a brand new user adds content that doesn't serve Wikipedia's purposes or goals, it's typically an honest mistake. When they keep adding it despite a clear explanation, based on some unfounded belief that they are right, it becomes disruptive. If you'd like another opinion, feel free to ask another administrator or another experienced editor. As for your query about "freedom to add content", note that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

About ``See also`` section

@Cyphoidbomb: Instead of correcting things on this PAGE, you are just removing See also section. Before doing your SPEEDY action, you should check page History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafar24 (talkcontribs)

Zafar24, this edit does not conform to WP:SEEALSO. There was no obvious reason why these links were added. Entries to this section should contain annotations so that readers know why we are sending them to these articles, and there should be some tangential relationship to the article subject like:
See also
Further, the editor who submitted that problem content had created multiple accounts in violation of Wikipedia policy. They were being disruptive and adding the same links to multiple articles with no regard for logic. Like here. What relationship does Karan Singh Grover, Karan Wahi, Surjit Saha and Tina Dutta possobly have with American actor Matt Le Blanc? None. As to your point, "Before doing your SPEEDY action, you should check page History", there's nothing on the page history that explains this user's poor decisions, so I'm not clear on what your point is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yo, Cyphoidbro

It's me, Hoshi. As you have may noticed, I have gone back to evading my block. This is because the others are way too stubborn to give me a second chance, so yeah. If they accepted my unblock request, I would have made helpful contributions and it would have all stopped. The only people you can blame is them.

As for those threats I sent you a few years back, I am really sorry. I never meant it like that. I will never do any of those again, trust me. (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology. Though I understand your frustration, your rationale for continuing the disruption is not logical. You basically attempted to blackmail the admins (a la: unblock me or I'll be a pain in the ass) which only justified their reticence to unblock you by proving that nothing had changed. The fact that you then tried to shift blame back to the admins with statements like "Just remember that it is your own fault" and above "The only people you can blame is them" is so cringe-worthy to read that it's embarrassing. Does that ever work in real life? "It's my wife's fault that I beat her." What?!
I do, however, recognize your potential for productivity, so if you can keep your nose clean and stay away from the socking, trolling and harassment[9][10] for 3 months, I will consider a conditional unblock. I'll have to figure out some terms, but they'll likely require immaculate referencing, no bullshit in articles, clear edit summaries and a total shift of attitude, (i.e. not getting bent out of shape when you are corrected, etc.) for some probationary period. During the probationary period if there are any lapses of good behavior, the indefinite block is restored. Something like that. Does that sound reasonable and achievable? If so, we'll work out the details in 3 months. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a deal. (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

When you get a chance....

Hello Cyphoidbomb, When you get a chance, can you please see this section on Angus' talkpage? Thanks much, Tankytoon (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


User:Madhumira Roy Banerjee seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Ishq Hawa Mein. Can't find the investigation page anywhere. - Managerarc talk 15:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Managerarc, nor can I. I think Ponyo may have gone rogue on this. Face-smile.svg There's some info in her talk page archives User talk:Ponyo/Archive 29, User talk:Ponyo/Archive 30. Some of the edit summaries look similar. Ponyo, you wanna take a gander? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yup, they're  Confirmed to Ishq Hawa Mein. Clean-up on Aisle 2!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


Edits done in the plot is exact details. Confusion could be there, it is described in the edit summary. Other details you have cited were simple reverts since the plot revert was not logical. The plot element: Sreebala doesn't investigate the missing actress and her missing colleagues case, She investigates along with her colleague Silas on the missing actress case. The court clerk mention was for added clarity. If you understand what is written and if you are interested make those changes yourself. Changes made by MarnetteD was also suspicious. What made me tick is these ( & I thought a similar attempt for vandalism is done just like Cartawagna. (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure how many times you're going to need to hear this, but I'll say it again: "The story revolves around Commissioner Sreebala IPS (Manju Warrier) who investigates a missing person case of an actress, along with her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith)." is poor English. The other version "The story revolves around Commissioner Sreebala IPS (Manju Warrier) who investigates a case of an actress who, along with her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith), has gone missing" seems to say the same thing in cleaner English. If you're saying that the new version is not correct, that can be attributed entirely to the first version being poorly written, and I can see where there might be ambiguities. The talk page is always the best place to bring this up. Restoring problematic content doesn't make anything clearer.
MarnetteD is not a vandal. They're a respected editor with 109,000 edits to their name. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I was wrong about MarnetteD the Frank Oz edit looked bad without any links didn't realize it was an revert. Just for better understanding how would you put "The story revolves around Commissioner Sreebala IPS (Manju Warrier) who investigates a case of an actress who, along with her colleague ACP Silas Abraham (Indrajith), has gone missing" in other words. Does that sentence reflect
  • (Sreebala+Silas Abraham) -> investigates -> (Missing Actress case) or
  • (Sreebala) -> investigates -> (Missing [Actress+Silas Abraham] case)
I also like to more about what all tools are available, is it a wikipedia project. Just a small intro or links, thanks in advance. (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If time allows a response would allow us both be past this and you can archive it. (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC), I don't know why you didn't open a discussion on the Vettah talk page, but I have done that for you. If you can answer the questions posed, we can resolve the grammar issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank You, Can you provide a simple guide to (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a guide to the tools at, sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Any links ? or how did you find this one, any pointers. (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I really don't know what you are asking. Links for various tools can be found at various places across the project, depending on where they are needed. The tool that I linked can be found at the bottom of every regular user's contribution page. (It cannot be found on IP contribution pages) Look for "Edit count". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

/* Plagiarism */

Yes while we are all aware that plagiarism is academically unethical, it is however advisable to read up the meaning of plagiarism. Something that "looks copied" or "appeared to be copied" need not necessarily be copied. The plot summary on Theri (film) and the one on IMDb were both reviewed and they were clearly not one and the same. It does not matter now that the plot has been written. However, it is recommended that there be an actual reason for removal of content rather than just personal opinions or whims and a warning of suspension of editorial privileges. Thanks. User:Jamf21 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ribbon Salminen reverting edits

Ribbon has been reverting pretty much all of my edits like a fuking stalker, he even started to make insults on me and if I fuking reply him back you'll get on my ass and block me, so for once in my life I'll be a pussy and snitch so you can take action to that idiot. heres the insult.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SethAdam99 (talkcontribs)

SethAdam99, I must speak frankly: I'm not sure what you expect to come of this. You've gone out of your way to attract negative attention like pretending to be an administrator to your pro Hitler nonsense and generally hostile user page content. It's no surprise that an established editor (who has 105,000+ edits here and thus is very experienced) might consider you to be here for disruptive reasons and is making sure that your edits conform with our established policies and guidelines. If you're not comfortable with the scrutiny, perhaps you should reconsider the image you are portraying. It's further troubling that your comments here couldn't be made without calling Ribbon an idiot or without the gratuitous cursing. Wikipedia is a community project and not everybody works well with other people. If this describes you, you may consider a different hobby since it will be very difficult to edit constructively with others if you have trouble communicating politely or adhering to basic guideines. I don't see anything actionable against Ribbon. Asking someone if they pulled a fact out of their ass doesn't violate WP:CIVIL, in my opinion. Calling someone an idiot, however, does. Please beware the boomerang. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I am a pro hitler, and consider myself an admin here besides that i really don't give a shit no more because you're just basically kissing ribbon's ass.. SethAdam99 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You're entitled to your misguided and baseless opinions. When you present evidence that the user has violated a core policy, then we'll talk. Getting bent out of shape that he said "ass" or that he suggested you pulled information out of thin air because it was unsourced just doesn't warrant administrative intervention. Good luck with your pro-Hitler lifestyle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I've calm down and I apologize for insulting you and using profanity, I know being foul mouthed will not get me anywhere and I would like to start fresh on wikipedia. Thank you for making me understand that I was wrong and I will stop acting like a jackass. SethAdam99 (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
SethAdam99, I certainly appreciate your apology, and I expect that being less antagonistic should make your experience better around here. Good luck, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Lehmber Hussainpuri

Hello Cyphoidbomb. I was hoping you might be able to add the Lehmber Hussainpuri article to your watchlist. It has slowly devolved into a fanpage full of promotional language and puffery, in gross violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. I have redacted the much of the offensive content, but would appreciate a second set of eyes to review my changes, as well as future edits. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yamaguchi先生, Done! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. May I ask you to add one more to your watchlist, Madhuri Dixit? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yamaguchi先生, that one's already on my watchlist. Face-smile.svg I'll try to remember to look at it occasionally, though... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again Cyphoidbomb. At your convenience, will you please review my most recent adjustments and redactions: [11] I believe there are still issues with puffery and promotional language to be resolved, would WP:BLP/N be the best location to highlight these concerns? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Yamaguchi先生, sorry for the delay in response--I didn't have time to think about this yesterday. The changes look good with me, and yeah, I suppose BLP/N would be the best venue. I know that the Indian cinema task force is a ghost town, and the Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics doesn't seem to have time to focus on this sort of stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb

I am actually new at this because I do not normally know how to function these types of symbols and I do not use Wikipedia that much.

To make it clear and concise since you still do not understand my case, on the List of Antenna TV shows' Wikipedia page, the information was very accurate previously with its debut dates. With Vjmlhds' opinion, this person felt that it is not necessary put in the dates of its debut per show on the Antenna TV page. I understand this person wants to make it simple, but the way we had it previously was well organized. Again, Wikipedia pages are meant for everyone to contribute, but not for a person who takes control the entire page back and forth. If there is something wrong with the page or if the information is incorrect, we can make the changes and correct the mistakes.

It is just that when I was working on the Qubo page, there were too much false information without any sources available so therefore people had to contribute to correct and redo the entire page with the correct information.

I am here on Wikipedia to contribute and update information.

Yes, we all have our own opinions in editing Wikipedia sources.

Cbears22 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:2017 television seasons

Category:2017 television seasons has been created twice this year already, and it's only April. As you are aware, the category shouldn't be populated until at least January 1, 2017. I've emptied it (again) and tagged it with {{db-catempty}} (again) but this is going to happen over and over, as it does every year. Could I impose on you to put on your admin hat and create protect the cat until January 1, 2017 to save us all a lot of wasted time? Cheers. --AussieLegend () 11:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aussie, sorry for the delayed response--the ever-exciting world of Indian cinema articles is keeping me busy lately. Oddly enough I haven't done a whole lot in the way of cat additions, so I'm not as sharp as I could be there and I need a bit of clarification: Why shouldn't the cat be created until Jan 1? If we knew in mid-2016 that an episode was going to air September 1, 2017, the article wouldn't belong in that cat? I'm a touch confused because Category:2018 films and similar exists. I guess the short question is: is there a guideline/discussion on this? I'm happy to do it, I would just prefer to get my background info up to speed first. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I know what being busy is like. My daughter was supposed to be in Perth, on the other side of the country, until September, and I was getting ready to ship a spare car over to her so she didn't have to buy one to drive around for 5 months. Yesterday she rang me and said she was coming home "today" and asked me to pick her up from Sydney airport, which is over 100 miles away, so I've just returned from a 270 mile round trip. Anyway ... We did discuss the issue of these categories at WT:TV in November 2014. These categories are not for upcoming seasons, they're for seasons that have already aired (note past tense) at least one episode in the current year. Since 2017 won't be the current year for 9 months, Category:2017 television seasons can't be populated until January 1, when episodes star airing in 2017. --AussieLegend () 10:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)