User talk:Vinayachandranlovedr

Hello, Vinayachandranlovedr, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field . Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Because that's not how you write information in Wikipedia. Please write in an academic manner. Do not add the rating stars in between sentences and always keep proper format (italicize film names).

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

Hi,
If the question is regarding the removal of Hit, Flop etc. from Notes section, it is the general wiki standard. No BO claims to be made without valid sources from trusted sources, with Budget/Gross figures. Another point is, Notes section is generally meant for providing relevant an Wikipedic information, like the ones provided there now. Budget and Grosss are as per guidelines, to be provided in individual articles. If it is regarding the Doctor Love and other articles, I only added 'Citation needed' tag, which is an improvement opportunity so that others can provide proof for the statements made, which are debatable.
Anish Viswa 10:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, possible. But since this is English Wikipedia, the articles should be in English for the Administrators to verify and also the hosting sites should be keeping the images permanently, else after sometime the images will be gone from there and the links will point to some other image.
Anish Viswa 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
You provided a reference in Doctor Love thread stating that the film run for 88 days. Could you please tell where did the film run for 88 days? In the centres mentioned in the article, Thrissur and Changanassherry, as per my knowledge, the film run for 47 and 27 days respectively.
Anish Viswa 01:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

The article

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

For adding a reference to each of the two articles in question. Have a great week! --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly have the patience to read and understand

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits in film articles as you did in

WP:FILM. Thank you and happy editing. Madvirgin (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You can't say it increases readability. Wikipedia has certain policies and "bulleting" the reviews are against the instructions given in

Featured Article you can see that the reviews are written in continuous form only. Madvirgin (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You can use simple HTML breaks as I now did in Ustad Hotel article. I discussed with senior Wikipedians and they confirmed that it is perfectly fine. Bullet lists are opposed since they add load to the article size. You can inform this to Madvirgin also.
Anish Viswa 09:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested MicaelQSchmidt to intervene.
Anish Viswa 04:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only utilizes professional reviews

even after being told non professional reviews are not allowed, you are continuing to add them [1] . You need to stop or your disruptive behavior will lead to you being blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

If you continue your disruptive editing across multiple articles to reinsert

reply:

reliable source. the length of time that something has existed has very little bearing on whether or not it is an acceptable source. what matters is that it has an appropriate editorial review board and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy -and in this particular genre, whether or not the reviews are done by a professional critic. That is the hurdle you to need to establish before you can reinsert those reviews. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Housefull (2013 Film)

The article

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housefull (2013 Film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring this to the notice of Tinucherian (Wiki Admin - Malayali) and Salih (Senior editor - Malayalai) and request them to look into the edit pattern of RedPenofDoom.
Anish Viswa 08:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to sto

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Housefull (2013 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The repeated reinsertion of non professional reviews against the projects policies and guidelines MUST STOP. This is your final warning to stop your disruptive behavior. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was looking at this article as it's been tagged for

Please share your views on the deletion tag put on Kunjananthante Kada article. I improved the article with some reliable sources now.
Anish Viswa 04:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding non-professional reviews to articles. Wikipedia content must be from

Please stop adding unsourced and non-reliably sourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced or non-reliably sourced material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You need to stop edit warring to reinsert content from non reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re your "excuse" [2] , "some guy named vincent posting on the web" is not a reliable source and it is the

]

March 2013

Your recent editing history at

reverts

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

You have been

edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Yunshui 雲‍水 14:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

returning from a block for inserting inappropriate links to continue to insert inappropriate links is a good way to get blocked again for a longer time or even permanently. Please stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response Wikipedia only uses the reviews of professional critics in reliably published sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

April 2013

You have been

spam links and continued disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Yunshui 雲‍水 13:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

---

Request reason:

hai moderator, please understand the situations. nowrunning.com, indiaglitz.com etc have been reviewing the movies for many years and in a language malayalam one of the regional indian language you cant find ratings rotten tomatoes or anything only you can get are form some recognised sites. you can confirm this with any malayali moderator you have in your list and redpenofdoom user does not seem to be a malayali and thus he dont know anything about malayalam movies or reviewers and he is deleting the reviews and depriving users from information. pls lift my ban and take necessary action. Vinayachandranlovedr (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

You have been made aware - over and over again, on this page and others - that your addition of amateur reviews and inappropriate external links is not acceptable. That you would continue to do so immediately after coming off a block for that exact behaviour strongly suggests to me that you are not willing or able to work in a collaborative environment. If you carry on in this vein when your current block expires, you will be blocked indefinitely. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article,

Silence (2013 Film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page,

speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Silence (2013 film) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page

.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by

article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. BOVINEBOY2008 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Vinayachandranlovedr. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Pointless references

Hi there, re: these changes, you've added four totally pointless references to support The Great Father's gross. While manoramanews.com is generally fine, there was no purpose in adding onlookersmedia.in (a blog), filmibeat (which is generally not considered reliable per

WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources for a general run-down on the sorts of sources that are and are not suitable for inclusion. As a general rule, blogs and other faceless websites are insufficient for inclusion. Why? Because anyone can start a blog or a website and publish whatever they want. Unless you're in a position to argue that you know who the editorial staff is and why they should be considered experts in the field of Indian film finances, then you should not use that site. We only care what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about anything. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Vinayachandranlovedr. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]