This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kailash29792. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Kailash, this isn't an official admonishment or anything, but since you've chosen to blanket-restore all of Padmalakshmisx's changes, I think most admins would consider you responsible for whatever problems might be in them, and that includes any copyright violations, poor references, etc. You might want to pore through those edits and double-check for quality. From my perspective, this user has little comprehension for basics, including capitalisation, sourcing, plagiarism, etc. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Although Padmalakshisx is an unstable editor, he sometimes makes good changes. Since my last edit was via mobile, I didn't have enough time to check completely, and I apologise (though now I checked and it all seems good except for phrasing). Now that I have desktop access, I'll check all his edits properly and see if they are worth restoring. --Kailash29792(talk)03:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your right to have a contrary opinion, but I'm worried that you've been partially gaslighted here. This person has been an irritant for the better part of a decade and they have routinely lied and been a sneak and demonstrated poor judgment, even though they occasionally make constructive changes. This is what we call good-hand/bad-hand editing. Padmalakshmisx's edits are so inconsistent, I don't trust *anything* they change, because there is bound to be some buried problem with it, whether the change is overly promotional, or too affectionate, or is agenda-driven, or constitutes undisclosed paid editing, or is poorly-sourced, etc. And where you and your close associates have learned from your early mistakes and excelled, he not only makes rookie mistakes over and over, he also thinks that he is better than you, as he has demonstrated repeatedly, with his self-absorbed unblock demands, like here and here "Show me one editor who is competent enough to recreate that article." He thinks himself unparalleled in the world of Indian article editing, which is total bollocks. Editors who do a lot of anti-vandal stuff have a pretty clear-cut attitude toward trolls, vandals, and entitled sockpuppets: deny them recognition, and revert indiscriminately. Since there is no deadline, Wikipedia can live with slightly sub-par articles, rather than having to deal with the unfounded hubris of an unwelcome, questionably skilled editor who thinks he is better than everybody else, and who continues to thwart our policies. He's also been told numerous times about the Standard Offer, but refuses to stay away long enough to take advantage of if, instead, he has demanded that we make a special case out of him, because he is special and shouldn't be held to the normal standard. He's lied MANY times. He's denied MANY times. Again, not an official admonishment, but I think you need to consider whether or not it is worth your effort to defend an unwelcome editor who requires constant babysitting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I'm not gonna review his edits... not because I feel sympathy for his mindset that has made him do terrible things. But because it is a strenuous process checking each article. Did you read what he posted on my talkpage and comment based on that? At least has he been told that his edits made from a new, illegal account will be reverted? --Kailash29792(talk)05:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Plot copying?
Hi there, re: this, am I nuts, or is that plot summary copied from another source? This is dated 15 August, this is from 22 August and your addition was made on the 30th. Short story: All prose is considered copyrighted merely by having been created. (See Berne convention) We can't copy/paste even minor stuff like this. If a film hasn't been released yet, then we can include a brief published logline, but it has to be wrapped in quotes and sourced so we are neither plagiarising nor violating copyrights. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
As you said that I actually have to go to the building where they have the songbook of Miss Malini, but is there an oil line viewable songbook? Superbrickbro (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
MM
Except for the "800 pound gorilla" query, I have tried to resolve the queries made by Fowler so far. I feel that you can better summarise the lead as you have been working on the article for quite a while. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid04:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Ssven2, while writing the lead section of a film article, this is the rule I follow: In the first para, introduce the film, its director, producer and writer, the lead actors, the source material (omit if the film is original), conclude the para with the film's premise written in a line or two. Second para is about key production details. Third is about release, reception and legacy (sometimes legacy is the fourth para). Now para 2 needs to include only noteworthy aspects of production (I now feel Chettiar objecting to Rajini's casting can be removed). What all do you suggest? I feel we should include events such as Mahendran reading only part of the novel and developing the screenplay as he pleased (sans all Tamil film conventions he hated), Chettiar being negligent throughout the production (was he though?) and Balu and Kamal helping Mahendran. This source is used twice, do you see anything more worth adding? --Kailash29792(talk)11:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing extra from the Frontline source there. Most of the info has already been used in the article with other sources used for citation. You can proceed with your planned changes to improve the article if you haven't already done so and you can get back to me again. I can respond at tomorrow evening though as I'll be busy the whole day. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Did you click the "fullpage" option and come to this conclusion? If so, never mind. Besides, I hope my lead-rewriting proposition seems good enough to please Fowler's "800 pound gorilla" query. --Kailash29792(talk)14:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm reading through Mahendran's book on making the info on Chettiar as neutral as can be. I'll resolve that one comment on Tuesday for sure as I am a bit busy nowadays. Really sorry if I am not as responsive as I have been before, bro. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ssven2, and sorry if I was putting burden on you. That was never my intention. Slow and steady wins the race, but I feared the nomination may close anytime abruptly as a month seems to have passed by. --Kailash29792(talk)16:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I went through the book. Doesn't quite really mention any positive aspects from Chettiar's POV that much unfortunately. Maybe we can tone down the negative aspects or copyedit them. What do you think? Your call. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid16:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
For easy navigation, I put the MM chapter into a sub-folder, Chapter 14. I hope you read all of it. I guess the only way to sound neutral about Chettiar is narrating the incidents from Mahendran's perspective, saying something like, "According to Mahendran, Chettiar was a kanjoos and child-like". This good? But then you don't want to repeat words excessively. On an unrelated note, if Chettiar were still alive, he would definitively have given his own account of the behind-the-scenes like this one, right? Kailash29792(talk)16:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Kanjoos and child-like sounds worse than it already is tbh, lol. I did read those parts and not really much positive aspects there though. I'll try again tomorrow if I can coz I've gotta start studying for my PhD written exam. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid17:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Not just that. Mahendran also explained that they were personally good friends and remained so till Chettiar passed away and that they only had different POVs professionally as far as MM was concerned. Maybe you can elaborate like that. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid07:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I've looked at the themes section and its ok but seems not flowing just a little bit. I don't see anything major but I'm looking at Naman's book for anything further. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ssven2, now I've removed the entire third para (except the first line) under themes, thereby the fourth has become the new third. Does that look to solve any confusion or inconsistencies? --Kailash29792(talk)04:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Ssven2, please feel free to do so. Already Mr rnddude, who appears sympathetic to our cause is questioning him. Fowl isn't entirely bad though, just pessimistic and unpassionate (not exactly the same, are they?). He actually helped correct many plot details, which is why I didn't ARV him. Since the Uriyadi scenes in the film did not involve pots, I do not know what they are called, even though Mahi called them Uriyadi in his book. Kailash29792(talk)11:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
In case you didn't see this message, I'm pinging you Ssven2. Mr rnddude has withdrawn but not opposed. Does the consensus still look favourable to you? I'm not counting votes, but to me it looks favourable as Fowler is the only one opposing, despite having helped with the plot, while the majority of Mr rnddude's comments have been addressed. Can you please address Fowler's comments, regardless of whether he gives support or not? This is because I've become too downbeat after the events of the past few days. Besides, the co-ords will pass the FAC based on consensus over votes, and if his comments are addressed, they won't act so robotically. Kailash29792(talk)06:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
My mistake
Hey there, re: this, vandalism aside, my reversion was sloppy. I should have double-checked the figures. Or it's possible that I did, but then accidentally got them backwards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have noticed that Scissor Manohar has acted in over 40 films (from searching it on Wikipedia). The problem is that I can not find any notable sources about him. Do you think he is worthy of a Wikipedia article?
Regarding Aaro Pranam, could you find any reliable sources that saying that this film is the one of the only films in Brahmanandam and Vadivelu have acted together OR saying that this is the only Telugu film of Vadivelu. Thank you for your consideration.
Thanks Titodutta. I later realised Padmalakshmisx had created it before, but it was deleted due to his sockpuppetry. I'm considering recreating his other articles too in a different manner. Kailash29792(talk)02:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
If you can some of your articles for WP:DYK that will be great. These days we do not have (m)any India-related DYKs. Let me know if I can help in any way. --Titodutta (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.
The posters are you changing without reason it's not good. It's looks good and not having problem of any one but, u in race to change all posters dimensions so, please stop this now. Sush150 (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes Updates
Hi
Hope you doing well. Could you please look into this discussion and provide a suggestion.
Hello again! I hope everything is going well with you. Apologies for always leaving random messages on your talk page. I was wondering if you could look over my current FAC if you had the time. I always appreciate your feedback, and I will be taking a brief break from the FAC process to focus on off-Wiki work so this will be my last request for a little bit at least lol. Good luck with the Mullum Malarum article. I very much admire your persistence, and you have done so much excellent work with the article. Given all of the support for its last FAC, I hope that the next time is the winner. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Aoba47, I've given my support for your FAC. In return, could you please help with the "Themes" section of MM? Fowler put two block quotes, and if I try to solve anything, he accuses me of further ruining it both in terms of grammar and accuracy. Kailash29792(talk)05:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I removed the block quotes completely. I do not believe they add much to the article. I have always been told to paraphase and avoid relying on quotes as much as possible. I would have recommended to be kinder toward Fowler, but I have recently noticed his edit on the article's talk page. I am glad he retracted the comment and apologized for it, but I am still disappointed by that kind of attitude. Dr. Blofeld gave some excellent commentary during the last FAC, so it might be helpful to ask him to look through the article again if you have not done so already. Aoba47 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Aoba47, thank you for the rewriting. Yes, that book by Bibekananda Ray was unwanted since it just repeated Thoraval's comments (I remember reading that book earlier and avoided adding it for the same reason). Fowler isn't bad; he's just old-fashioned and rigid. While I hope he does not take part in the next FAC, I respect most of his comments and seek to solve them before opening the FAC, though they are hard to solve. However, his criticism and demanding of the removal of the book Cinemavum Naanum is unacceptable because all primary sources are not bad. I have translated the development details from the book onto this text file, so you may read and tell me if there are mistakes in the "development" section. Also, I'm pretty sure a primary source is acceptable in this situation since it is not an issue that is political, financial (producers often lie about budgets like Franchise Pictures did with this masterpiece) or religious. Kailash29792(talk)07:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kailash29792:Alaipayuthey's poster is a DVD cover, the image file must be renamed as the 'DVD cover of Alaipayuthey' from the current name which was given by you and also why did you redirect the previous file name to current name? Rukman Gul (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kailash29792:Minnale's previous photo was good, why did you upload a small and 'not so good' photo of the film, where the number '100' has been shown; though i don't understand Tamil but I am a fan of R. Madhavan and Minnale, will you please upload a new and large photo of Minnale which is also good to see. Rukman Gul (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Rukman Gul, no! Minnale is a Tamil only film. It is common to dub Tamil films in Telugu, just as it is common to dub English films in Indian languages, and South Indian films in Hindi (albeit only for TV channels like Sony Max). Kailash29792(talk)11:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Kannathil Muthamittal
@Kailash29792:Kannathil Muthamittal should have a good photo as this film is very famous in the Tamil film industry; I am not telling that the whole Tamil people like this film but this film is very significant for the conflict in Sri Lanka and also this film's story is fantastic, it should have a good publicity and should contain a good picture in Wikipedia article; can you upload a good picture for the film and also can you make the article a 'good article' like Moondram Pirai? Rukman Gul (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Mappillai
Hi Kailash. In my efforts to find and upload posters of old Telugu films, i found this link where we got some HD posters of Rajinikanth's Mappillai. Now deciding if they are better than the current one and uploading is your call. I just wanted to let you know. Regards, Veera Narayana20:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I now need to ask you: is there really such a rule?
Certain posters don't even have release dates. Why do we need that on a small sized poster anyways? There are references to confirm release dates. I don't think a poster submission should be reverted only because it doesn't show the release date, especially when it's not really easy to see the release date every time.
If there is such a rule, then one might want to abide by it. But if it's coined just by a couple of editors, I don't think it's right.
You might want to check articles where the poster doesn't have release date:
I think that much would be sufficient. While it's good to include a poster with release date, I don't think it should be considered necessary. (77Survivor (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC))
77Survivor, when there is a poster with the final release date, it's better to use that. If not, something close to the release date (like Diwali or Christmas), or at least the month of release. Kailash29792(talk)16:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
77Survivor, WP:FILMPOSTER says "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." I'm pretty sure that means a poster with the film's final release date (or at least something close to it, instead of a missed release date). For years I've been following this policy, and it has never been disputed. Kailash29792(talk)16:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kailash, in this diff, I only removed the source because I removed the text I assumed it was supporting, "The film was titled Guru Sishyan.", which is obvious from the article's title. That was a mistake; I should have realised it was supporting the previous sentence too. I'm sorry about that. Cheers, Baffle☿gab02:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Baffle gab1978, never mind . But you did understand the plot as you were editing it, did you? Especially the CBI officers/copies of the paper part? Then there must have been a good reason to remove the word "leverage". Kailash29792(talk)13:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; yes, I did understand most of the plot section. "Leverage" seemed to be incidental to the plot; this is why I removed it, but I've restored it for you. Cheers, Baffle☿gab05:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Baffle gab1978, thanks but please don't feel it was a demand. Basically, dirty cop Nallasivam realises that the two CBI officers who performed an income tax raid in his house are actually wastrels he already knows, but he cannot do anything to oppose them since they have created numerous copies of a paper signed by Mrs. Nallasivam saying her husband has a mountain of black money. As a result of this, they blackmail Nallasivam into helping them with their future tasks. So leverage is correct right? The hilarious scene (including the income tax raid) begins at 25:32 and ends at 34:57.
Yes, leverage is the correct word to use there; I can now see how it's relates to the rest of the film. Thanks for the link; I'll look at it later, good luck with your planned GA nomination. Cheers, Baffle☿gab06:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Numerounovedant, I'm waiting for Ssven to return full-time since I've realised I'm not a powerful one-man army, and that probably won't be until mid-October. Would you help me until then? I still feel Mahendran's book Cinemavum Naanum is the best usable source because of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Do you understand the WP:PRIMARYSOURCE policy fully, on where such sources can or cannot be used? Here is a page translating the development details of Mullum Malarum from Cinemavum Naanum. Once you finish reading it, tell me: do any of the Mahendran sources (do Ctrl+F and type {{sfn|Mahendran|2013|p) under "Development" section need replacement or rewriting? --Kailash29792(talk)03:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kailash, I went through the section and I see no reason as to why the book is not a good enough source for the information in the opening paragraph. The information that you're substantiating with the source is not complex or critical in nature and should not require secondary sources to support it. Even the guidelines suggest that such a book is "an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about himself or herself". And for the more significant and critical claims such as the film "lacking all the formulaic Tamil cinema conventions" you have secondary sources.
The place where you might possibly need a different source is for the producers and Mahendran and Chettiar bits. But again, I do not see why it is not good enough to support (at least) the information about what he felt about Chettiar and him picking up the project. It is not like you're stating it as a fact. It's clear from the text that it is just what Mahendran believed to be the case. VedantTalk10:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Numerounovedant, thanks for those uplifting words. Did you read the text file I shared? If I cannot replace a primary source, the best I can do is rewrite the sentence as something like, "According to Mahendran" or "Mahendran believed". Kailash29792(talk)10:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I did, Kailash. And no, I don't believe that it would be necessary to change the sentences as they conveh just the right meaning as such. VedantTalk10:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Kailash, there are a few things that I would like to add regarding the section. Let me know if you want to discuss them here, the PR or the film's talk page. VedantTalk11:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Worry not sir, I have decided to go ahead with making a few minor tweaks myself and will bother you with only the remaining few issues. VedantTalk19:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Satellite Shankar poster
Not notice this time to change the poster. This is not fair. You and another user are in race to change posters and say stick to one poster so you are now about four hours late. Please change and tell stick one poster. Sush150 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, friend I have daut about Hotel Mumbai article it's basically Australian- American film so it will be releasing India on 29 November. In this article we are not change poster??? It reflects indian release date. Someone is changing so i will confirm with help of you. Sush150 (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you have moved it properly - it wasn't a round robin move as all incoming links are preserved without the need of a redirect, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I do understand your valuable support. I have made very sincere efforts with the standard offer. I have even contacted the arbitration committee and offered them my true identity proof. I made sincere apology too. Actually I am not blaming you, I am blaming my self. But the fact is unfortunately the problem became out of proportions because of your too much interference few years back, what ever I am not blaming you, I am more experienced, better editor and sourcer and knowledgeable on matters than this user. 2409:4073:19f:558a:7868:d074:b78f:4b6a. Please keep a vigil on him. I will try to contact the arbitration committee after waiting for 6 months. In the mean time pls protect some of my previous best edits from this shadow user here -2409:4073:19f:558a:7868:d074:b78f:4b6a. It is not easy to edit given the current internet expenses and valuable time. All my efforts are getting unrecognized. Thank You for your understanding. Layercorey (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hatnotes
I was tempted in creating a template for your recent Chronological order hatnotes, but I had a read of the hatnote guideline and it seems per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Examples_of_improper_use that the use of hatnote for what you did is not supported. Any ideas how best to show the information not in a hatnote? --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus discussion to be had. The usage of hatenotes for that, is against the MoS. No local consensus can change that. Since you were the one that added it, I'm discussing with you alternative ways we can do that. Do you have any ideas? The only one I can think of is adding that line without any styling and a line break before the actual plot. --Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I've asked on the relevant MoS page and it seems that the way the film page did it is ok (they didn't use hatnote). I'll wait to see if my question gets other answers and if it's ok, I'll fix the usages. --Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
