User talk:Sapian sam

It's my talk page so contact me or come and talk to me in these page.

Sapian Sam.

This edit, where you make a demand that the budget value not be changed, is not constructive, as there is 1) a discussion about this on the article's talk page and 2) sourced content from a typically reliable source (Bollywood Hungama) expressing doubt about the super-high figures. If this is an issue you care about, participate in the discussion, but making unilateral demands that figures not change, and throwing out valid references is not going to fly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit, I looked at that entire first obnoxious referral link https://indianexpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/tamil/2-0-biggest-box-office-challenge-baahubali-2-5469003/lite/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Findianexpress.com%2Farticle%2Fentertainment%2Ftamil%2F2-0-biggest-box-office-challenge-baahubali-2-5469003%2F and I don't see any 985 crore claim. Care to point it out? I'm going to give you an opportunity to justify why you used a garbage, convoluted reference to assert a very high box office figure that doesn't appear in the link you submitted. Got anything to say? If you can't quickly provide a reasonable explanation for this box office exaggeration, I'll interrupt your editing privilege. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The-Numbers.com is a reliable source. You should not remove reliable sources from articles. Even if Box Office Mojo temporarily has more up to date figures than The-Numbers.com that is not a good reason to delete references to The-Numbers, especially not without giving a clear and specific reasons. -- 109.79.95.12 (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox film makes it clear that you do not get to "cherry pick" budget sources. You can't delete The-Numbers merely because you prefer Box Office Mojo.

I've repeatedly tried to explain this but you continue to make UNWISE edits and fail to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules. Stop deleting the Numbers for no reason, I don't want to have to report your disruptive editing. You should always explain your edits and especially deletes with an edit summary, and failing to do so at this stage shows a lack of good faith. Look at the edit History for an article, read the edit summaries before repeating edits that have been reverted and explain yourself properly. -- 109.76.211.117 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the documentation on Named References until you understand why these two edits [1] [2] were both incorrect. Please stop. -- 109.77.237.77 (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I noticed that you recently removed content from Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Diff: [3] It's unclear why you removed sourced content that presents the Manikarnika gross in the form of a range when it is clear that there is a difference of opinion among the reliable sources. Your stern admonishment "don't change Box office" is toothless, and you don't get to unilaterally decide what the "correct" figure is. We go with what reliable published sources say, not what Sapian sam says. Disagree? Your recourse is to open a discussion on the article's talk page. If you resubmit this content without a consensus, it will be considered disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop submitting links like this. You can't just copy the Google search result link, you need to submit the direct article URL. So instead of this:

https://www-zeebiz-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.zeebiz.com/india/news-total-dhamaal-box-office-collection-ajay-devgn-anil-kapoor-madhuri-dixit-arshad-warsi-87112/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeebiz.com%2Findia%2Fnews-total-dhamaal-box-office-collection-ajay-devgn-anil-kapoor-madhuri-dixit-arshad-warsi-87112

You need to submit this:

https://www.zeebiz.com/india/news-total-dhamaal-box-office-collection-ajay-devgn-anil-kapoor-madhuri-dixit-arshad-warsi-87112

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions and now I will be very careful about this. Sapian sam (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Total Dhamaal has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Xain36 {talk} 01:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sapian sam, a copyright violation is a big deal. If you cannot write plot summaries in your own words, do not copy from other sources. Leave the space blank. If you do this again, your editing privileges will be interrupted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, I'm getting tired of warning you about the dodgy references you keep adding. If you don't understand the difference between a referral link that filters you through cdn.ampproject.org and a reference that points directly to a normal domain like indiatimes.com, I don't know how to educate you. But the recurring net result of submissions like these seems to be mostly unusable. Also, when did anyone decide that latestly.com is a reliable source? I don't see anything at WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources that would justify that addition and we don't use random websites/blogs/portals as references. Last shot: Read WP:RS, read WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources, read WP:ICTFFAQ, and read Referencing for Beginners. Any more problematic referencing like this is likely to result in an interruption of your editing privileges. It's not okay that your sloppy copy/pasted references require fixes from other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Missing (2018 film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diff: [4] Wikipedia is not your personal blog. If you want to opine about a film's financial performance or critical response, open up a Twitter account and publish whatever you want. But at Wikipedia, we only care what reliable published sources have to say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit and improvements for article. Thanks you. 58.187.77.36 (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]