User talk:Editor 2050

Hi, it's good that you added nominations for few years. But where is the source for the years other than the current year. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for Filmfare Best Actor-Tamil nominations. If so add it to the article. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 13:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For maintaining South Indian films related articles. Keep up the good work :-) Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Will expand the article once I get time, as I'm a bit occupied with other work. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 04:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had a long desire to expand and elevate articles such as Mouna Raagam, Nayakan and Thalapathi. However, finding sources for them is really a challenging task. These films deserve a great place in the history of Tamil cinema and have a lot of potential. To do that we need to collaborate, without which it's not going to be that easy. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for creating and expanding the article of S. N. Lakshmi. Appreciating your diligence in making a article to a legendary actress. Keep up the good work!! Ason27 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to take the article to GA status. Pls have a look at it; any suggestions for improvement? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor 2050, I think u can copy-edit it to some extent. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the article has passed its GA review. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are an excellent editor and keep all (at least the majority of) Tamil film articles up-to-date. But please remember one thing: please try to avoid using the term "roped in" as it sounds slangy. Also, do please remember to clear your talk page of unnecessary conversations so that navigation is easier. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Recently you made this edit on the Kochadaiiyaan page. Your addition of information is much appreciated but could you please also add the necessary citations to the references from where you got the info? Thanks and peace! NiR_insanity 10:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think the film got a theatrical release. —Vensatry _(Ping) 14:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, saw some news regarding a potential release and saw it listed on the Tamil films of 2001 page. I'm not certain either. It's also up on YouTube, with a censor certificate, completed version et all. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite confusing! I've come across a few Tamil movie forums all saying the film is yet to have a theatrical release. Interestingly Vairamuthu has written all the songs. I thought IR and Vairamuthu never worked together after Punnagai Mannan (1986). —Vensatry _(Ping) 15:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chanderforyou has deleted a lot of content from Rana (film), claiming that the sources are "not reliable". Can u please restore the info with alternative sources, or try convincing him? I failed in both. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just looked at the changes, and don't really agree with them. But then again I'm not really sure if Rana should have a page at the moment anyone - Lingaa seems to be an entirely different venture. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too initially felt Rana should not have a separate article due to its currently shelved status and nominated it for deletion, although the consensus was to keep because the film stalled during principal photography. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the references before you Redirect it, the references have all the information with photos including the film's audio launch. This might be a small film, that does n't mean that it is not qualified for wikipedia. Please do not redirect/revert the edit. Rajeshbieee (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New references added - indiaglitz

Rajeshbieee (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you have been on Wikipedia for quite a few years, I think you are familiar with the concept of Good and Featured articles. Currently, Gemini (2002 Tamil film) is a FAC (featured article candidate) and I think you would like to post your comments on the FAC page. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh say, can you at least say something? Even a negative reply is not bad, but ignorance feels impolite. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your comments and they have been solved. By the way, is there more to come? Coz, you never said whether you support or oppose the FAC. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 04:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And great job creating those two articles. That was quick!! -- Sriram ^{speak up} 04:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on Gemini's FAC. They all appear to have been solved. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for the support tag. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have nominated Chandralekha (1948 film) for FA status, and it is my first FAC. Feel free to post comments on the FAC page. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have any intention on creating articles on Sreedhar Pillai and Film News Anandan? Because they are film experts, and content published by them in any media should be acceptable (SP uses Twitter). Kailash29792 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially soon, the latter definitely needs an article. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before removing the maintenance tags discuss the issue on the talk pages of interested users. Arjann (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have nominated the list for FLC and I invite you to review the nomination and suggest improvements, if any. Here is the nomination page. Thanks. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 06:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied for some of your comments and working on the rest. Are there more to come? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the peer review for the film. Please do suggest any changes that I should make before I go for FAC. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job ArasiArul (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so on the new page feed I found U. K. Senthil Kumar, are you sure that's the guys name or shouldn't it be something like Senthil Kumar (cinematographer) instead? Wgolf (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has been credited under this name - should be fine. It's merely an initial. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aww okay-you might want to add a hat note also. Wgolf (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can do some cleanup on that page using this existing source, it would be great. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've observed that you have moved the page Untitled Vamsi Paidipally project to Dosth (film). But, reliable sources are stating that the makers are keen to name the film as Dosth. Any explanation from your side is appreciated. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia articles should have information on rumors as, according to this policy, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." You can also use gadgets like Twinkle and ProveIt to ease editing. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After I saw your recent edits on Thanga Magan (2015), I'll tell you this again: please do not add informaion on rumours, as they are unencyclopedic. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your efforts for creating articles of not so familiar directors who did two or three films. Please do create more articles, for example G. Marimuthu, A. Govindamurthy, Manivasagam and Thakkali Srinivasan. Srivin (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tended to concentrate on artistes/technicians who were at some point widely reported in the press - or those who have done a minimum of three films. The latter two are articles I will make at some point. Editor 2050 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think this one might be a dubbed version of either Tales of The Kama Sutra: The Perfumed Garden or Khajuraho. He did direct the latter. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nope. There are reports of a "trilingual film" titled Kaama / Kama Tantra in production during 1999: here and here. Also the Telugu version of the film with the director's son Vishal, Urvasi, Sunila in the lead, and a solo song from Deepti Bhatnagar thrown in with little relevance to the plot - can be found here. It seems to have hit the screens rather quietly in 1999, after a run in with the censors. Khajuraho also featuring Vishal, but with Mamta Kulkarni and Sadhika, seems to be something else as per this. Funnily enough, a YouTube search suggests that the same, standalone Deepti Bhatnagar song was also used in the film, as per here. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! So it's safe to assume that the film never hit the screens per this source? —Vensatry _(ping) 06:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that article suggests that news about the film suddenly diminished - but this states it as a released film. It must have had a super low-key release. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly redirect Nawab Narkali (1972 film) with Nawab Naarkali. Srivin (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. How come you didn't want to do it? Editor 2050 (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the problem is I do not know how to redirecting despite reading the rules I have failed while doing for some articles and also please redirect Thai Moogambikai with Thaai Mookaambikai. Thanks. Srivin (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Appreciate your efforts! :) Chitreshraj (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor 2050 : Wanted to inform you about a change in Heebah Patel Article, where few of the external source of the article call it as Hebah Patel. Please check below link. Edit1702 (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.ibtimes.co.in/hebah-patel-says-kumari-21f-coming-age-love-story-655235
• http://www.financialprospect.com/entertainment/kumari-21f-censor-report-and-hebah-patels-interview-11446.html

Latest news on the film's production and title. Please update the article with this because my net is down. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a generic site. Your net is down, eh? :S Editor 2050 (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request you not to retitle Enthiran 2 (film) by simply cutting and pasting. Using Twinkle, I have tagged 2.0 (film) for deletion, and once it is deleted, Enthiran 2 (film) can be moved to that title. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, brilliant. Cheers. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An update about the film's title, though its credibility may be questioned. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but yes credibility is most definitely questioned. Looks like a blog of sorts. It's probably best to keep track of [1], [2] and [3] for the moment. Editor 2050 (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bro ... one scene movies we mentioned in career... so pls stop adding one scene movies in her filmography ... --Calicutspecialist (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bro m trying hard to improve parvathy nair article ... pls help me on this... --Calicutspecialist (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calicutspecialist: Just try to make the article less biased towards her, though I know you maintain close contact with her. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792: bro we mentioned all films in her career ...but when adding one scene movies in filmography it wil be a reason to lose the focus of main important films ... I m sure if we add all one scene movies in every other actors filmography there will be many movies .... so its important to remove unnoticed one scene movies frm filmography ... It wil definitely help to improve Wikipedia.. thank you .. --Calicutspecialist (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calicutspecialist: The actress has done about a dozen films - one scene "guest appearances" in prestigious projects (NN and it's remake) hardly lose any focus. Also every other actor do have their "one scene movies" included. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support Editor 2050's decision. And in the filmography section, we can even acknowledge her small roles as "cameo appearances". Kailash29792 (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792: Looks like Calicutspecialist has given away his own sockpuppet [4] - the same fella who set up this almost a year ago [5]. Sigh. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calicutspecialist no doubt behaves very much like Abhinand. But when I asked Parvathy (I do not mean to violate WP:COI) if she knows Calicutspecialist personally, she said she does not. If you have Twinkle installed, you can file a SPI case and present evidence of Abhinand's sockpuppetry if any. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aiyo. Cheers anyway, poor Parvathy. Let's see how it pans out. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted her account, there does seem to be an Abhinand who leaves comments on pretty much every post. Big fan, I guess. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More than "big fan", he seems to be a stalker. I never wished to get entangled into this mess, so I will remove Parvathy Nair from my watchlist and cease editing it (except improve the prose when necessary). Although Parvathy claims that User:Josu4u has been editing articles about her films disruptively, I checked his edits and they seem to have a point (such as billing a cast list according to a press release). He has been active for quite a few years and has even won a few barnstars, so I guess he is a reasonably respectable and honest editor. I don't see why both Parvathy and Abhinand should oppose his edits; probably because they speak out against her. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is not my subject I figured you might want to look into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Magipur&namespace=&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&year=2016&month=-1 Wgolf (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood's not my area - but sigh, it does look like it's been ongoing for a while. I'm surprised all those earlier articles managed to survive. Not quite sure where to start. Editor 2050 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well-I did put up some prods already! Wgolf (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this section in the article? I created it, but I think it needs expansion and c/e. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, seems like an important section. I did the prose for the rest a few years back and I did ponder a similar section at the time - with subsections for his female characters, music & poetic titles. Not sure if I've got it saved somewhere. I'll c/e + add either way soon. Editor 2050 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, your edit here at Irudhi Suttru is problematic for a few reasons. For starters, you attempt to summarize the entirety of critical response without attributing that summary to a specific voice. It is not our place to cherrypick reviews and then summarize those cherrypicked reviews. Secondly, "highly positive reviews" is meaningless promotional fluff, and I can only assume you mean "widespread acclaim", rather than critics fainting in the aisles because of how great they think the film is. But even then, you'd have to attribute the summary to a specific voice. I'll also point out that your addition of "Behindwoods.com also gave the film a very positive review" is entirely absurd, considering they gave the film 3.25 stars out of 5. I'm not sure why you'd interpret a middle-of-the-road review as "very positive", but it reeks of promotional editing and this will not be tolerated. Same with your unsubstantiated statement that the dub of the film received "[unanimous praise for] the lead pair's performances." Completely inappropriate hyperbolic nonsense. Who decided it was unanimous? You? Also, did you even try to find a negative review to present a balanced picture? Surely someone must have had some negative criticism about the film's pacing, tone, cinematography, etc? Content needs to be written in a neutral point of view, not focus entirely on the rosy reviews. It is academically dishonest to only present one side when writing about subjective topics. Stick to presenting balanced information, please, not summarizing and editorializing, as you will quickly find your editing privileges revoked if your edits are again found to be promotional in nature or contrary to established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb - Woah, woah, woah. Such a dramatic message. I understand where my writing on that article borders on excessive praise, but it really is reflected on the sources given. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Tamil film industry - but the film has indeed received glowing reviews, comparatively to other films. Behindwoods.com, a reputable source for that matter, usually do not give films ratings above 2.75 stars. Comments like Completely inappropriate hyperbolic nonsense and you will quickly find your editing privileges revoked if your edits are again found to be promotional in nature or contrary are extreme to say the least. Editor 2050 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, if I found any negative review, I would definitely add it to the section, if it was from a reputable source and contained useful facts. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that you can create draft articles for up-and-coming subjects? This can work well especially for films that are yet to commence filming. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, haha. I have done that for a bunch of films in my sandbox over the last few years. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Arnav19 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: ). The filer of the report, User:Kailash29792, asserts that User:Arnav19 is creating articles on dubbed soap operas, and this is contrary to usual practice. There is nothing in the report that would allow me to confirm that it's against our practice. Do you know more about how we handle dubbed TV shows, and do you have an opinion on this? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess her "fan" - User:Abhinand1234 is back to manipulating the article according to her desires, through a new account: User:Megamohan. What do you think? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped that improving the page would stop all that. Obviously not. Editor 2050 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I asked was, do you think Abhinand is back through a new account? Do you think I should file a SPI case? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello (Vanakkam) please do not disambiguation for serial (Balaganapathy & Bala Ganapathy (TV series) it's a different language serial and balaganapathy popular Malayalam soap opera that launched on Asianet and Bala Ganapathy (TV series) is a Tamil soap opera that aired on STAR Vijay. --Arnav19 (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a physical copy of Conversations. If you want, I can share the pages with you, and that could help you expand the remainder of Ratnam's film articles as you've been doing of late. The book I have, however, does not include Kadal or OK Kanmani. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, sounds like a good idea. I'm slowly looking to polish them all - especially the early ones. OK Kanmani is as good as done. Editor 2050 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the pages for Mouna Ragam and Roja. Though the former is already a GA, an FAC is being planned (and several pages from the book don't seem to have been used), and the pages for the other films will be uploaded soon. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WP:FILEUPLOADWIZARD can be used to upload the poster https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D:Aaaah-2014-Movie-Poster.jpg In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I hate to bring this to your attention considering your experience editing at Wikipedia, but your edit here at Irudhi Suttru where you state that the film received critical acclaim, is unsourced. We are not permitted to draw our own conclusions about subjective matters like critical response, and then add that content to articles and present them as facts. That should be left to professionals, and such summaries should be directly quoted. The change you made is also in conflict with a summary further down in the article that describes the critical response as mixed and is supported by this reference. Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of summarizing critical response as well, so there is always the option to leave it out. (Although in this case, removing a sourced summary wouldn't be very useful.) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor 2050, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Nakon 04:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the film will be made as a trilingual is a rumour. It's very unlikely that the film will even be dubbed into Malayalam. It happened with OKK too. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cheers - I know that. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think her article name should simply be "Raadhika"? Because she was famous even long before her marriage to Sarathkumar, and was for long referred to by her first name only; she still is. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be just Raadhika. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, in this edit you reordered a cast list without providing an explanation consistent with established guidelines (i.e. WP:FILMCAST). Can you explain your rationale in the future, please? This tends to look like a completely arbitrary change, like one made to match our personal preference. To give you some context, a year or so ago there were two editors fighting about whether Mammootty or Mohanlal should be placed first in cast lists. It was absurd. This is why we have guidelines for this sort of thing. Additionally, you removed the character description that Paraman is Anbuselvi's father. Was there a reason for this? We're not limited to only listing the character's name. Context helps readers understand the relationships between characters, which would be important if, say, someone was reading a plot summary. It would be appreciated if you'd please use edit summaries with all your edits--this is a collaborative project, and communication with other editors is crucial. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - this was re-arranged as per the credits from the start of the film. The character description was removed purely for consistency with most other Tamil film Wikipedia articles. I guess a consensus could be reached at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation on the ordering. I'll leave it alone. Consensus already exists for inclusion of brief character descriptions at WP:TVCAST. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note an article can only be prodded once in its lifetime as per WP:PROD, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This candidate is open since the first of September. It could gain benefit from few constructive comments. Would you like to provide some? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be naive to say that the nationality of the majority of the cast decides the nationality of the film itself. It is the production studio that decides the film's nationality, but I think people here don't see it the same way. E.g.: Slumdog Millionaire has a largely Indian cast, but was produced by a UK studio, hence it does not qualify as an Indian film. As for any Tamil film produced by the UK-based Ayngaran International, what do you think? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Films by Ayngaran are more widely released and marketed in India for Indian audiences, rather than in the UK for British audiences. Interesting question - but I feel that the "release and marketing" strategy is the prime decider in this scenario. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, re: this edit, you do realize that The Hindu doesn't say that the film is only being shot in Tamil as you assert, right? It identifies the film as a Tamil science fiction film, but I think we both know that could very well be because The Hindu is identifying what industry it came from. I don't have an interest in changing it, I just needed to point out that the conclusion you drew is not explicitly stated by the reference. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sure there will be more clarity when a poster releases - but like the previous film - this will merely be a Tamil film dubbed and simultaneously released into Hindi and Telugu. Making readers believe it will be anything other than that is incorrect. Most of those sources that have been listed ie.indianexpress.com - have most likely taken the information from this incorrect piece of information on the Wikipedia page. Oh well. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they knew about the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree: "If an otherwise reliable source attributes information to an unreliable source then that information is likewise unreliable." And Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trilingual content came from a reliable source that said explicitly that the film was being shot in three languages.[6] And as far as I can remember, this information predated the content in the article because we didn't know what languages to add until the source came out. Prior to that source, the film was being described as bilingual per this reference. Or at least that's what I remember. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Again these sources most likely got the information from speculation - none are from interviews and so forth. Shankar's recent films (note Enthiran, Nanban and I) are exclusively made in Tamil but are released in Hindi/Telugu on the same day. Even though the first look releases next month - I wouldn't be surprised if the first look reveals different versions of the film, as if it had been shot in different languages (like the completely Tamil Kaashmora had done in Kannada, Malayalam and Telugu [7] and the completely Malayalam Ezra has done in several languages [8]). I am sure an interview confirming such will trickle through eventually. Editor 2050 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Manisha Yadav is not a part of Kaashmora movie. Pls do not add her in cast. Thanks. Kathir 15:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkathir (talk • contribs)

Zkathir, okay sure - you may want to ask Think Music India to stop being misleading in their description section: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8leeiLJP0I Editor 2050 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge Ezhuthappurangal and Manjupeyyum Munpe. Srivin (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They are different. Also, you could just do it yourself. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do, actually I wanted to say merge Ezhuthappurangal with Ezhuthapurangal and Manjupeyyum Munpe with Ammayi Bagundi. Srivin (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, re: this edit, as a general FYI, the 2 column switch for {{reflist}} been deprecated and disabled for mobile view. Community preference is that individual browsers should determine the number of columns based on screen size, rather than the page dictating an inflexible 2 columns for every browser/window configuration. "30em" is the standard default. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not to get on your case today, but I also happened to notice this edit where you summarized a film's critical response without providing a reference. Though I know you mean well, these sorts of statements really need to come from a reliable published source. Western film articles typically get aggregation summaries from RottenTomatoes and Metacritic. I know it's a problem for Indian film since the ICTF has not agreed on a suitable equivalent to these sources, but it's problematic if we attempt to summarize them ourselves for a couple of reasons:

1. If we happen upon an article that has three positive reviews, we're taking a risk by summarizing that selection as positive because we might be unwittingly reinforcing someone's selection bias. If someone from the film's marketing department only posted positive reviews and we come in and say "the reception was mostly positive", that's entirely made up and may not reflect reality.
2. If the summary doesn't come from a specific voice, someone could easily come along, add more negative reviews and re-summarize. It becomes a magnet for bias and promotion/demotion.
3. We might be reinforcing our own biases. If I didn't like a movie, I might be less than earnest about trying to find positive reviews, and my resulting summary might accidentally reflect my own bias.

The matter has been discussed numerous times at WT:FILM and it seems fairly clear (per MOS:FILM#Film#Critical response) that the community requires these summaries to be attributed to reliable sources. Thanks and sorry for the hassle. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know, that an upcoming film will be notable? Isn't it a promotion?Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film is in production. It also features a notable leading actor and technical crew. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do reliable sources claim the film will be notable? Which India sources are notable I don't know. (In Poland sources about film do promotion rather than inform.)

No Tamil page?Xx236 (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been featured in the two leading Indian newspapers [9] and [10] and this has direct quotes [11]. Also, just trust me, I have created 750+ articles on Tamil films. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why only here, not in the Tamil Wikipedia?Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil wikipedia is far smaller, for the moment. Plus, I do not have easy access to Tamil font. It will be hopefully adapted in the weeks/months to come. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Tamil culture, but in Poland many people are post-colonialist, they care about opinions of foreigners, Oscar prize and others.Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Editor 2050. Thanks for all the fine work you're doing on Tamil film articles. I notice that you've been populating the category "Tamil sequel films" today. If you weren't already aware, you might find Wikipedia:HotCat useful for this. Hope that's useful, Wikishovel (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the project has been revived with Chiyaan, you may want to edit it to look better and more neutral. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add the names until you find reliable sources. —Vensatry _(talk) 15:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, what's up with this reordering? What guideline is being followed here if the film hasn't been released yet (and thus, the onscreen credits can't be verified) and the theatrical poster doesn't have a billing block? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. It was merely a presumption that Anushka gets the top billing considering her presence in the previous films, her leading role as Suriya's wife and her billing over Hansika Motwani in Singam II (another "second lead heroine"). Editor 2050 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, this has been changed numerous times without any rationale and the changes are not particularly constructive. It'd be appreciated if you'd please avoid these arbitrary changes. There are too many people's personal preferences and opinions to satisfy, which I think I've brought up before. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? The changes I made retracted those so-called "personal preferences and opinions" you mention. If you hadn't noticed, I cleaned the article up from the garbage that had previously existed - which you obviously must have forgotten to bring up before. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has begun filming. Courtesy, News Today. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of the article is poor. It reads like a gossip site with peacock terms. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I restored the page with the source added. The rest is up to you. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me find verified YT links or other news/web sources for the following comment from Vensatry at FLC: "Role still missing for Minsara Kanna, Shahjahan, Pokkiri and ATM. Saravanan (for Villu) and Pulivendhan (for Puli) aren't verified in the sources." Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ssven2 - [12], [13], [14] and [15]. Also [16] (seems legit - used in other GAs / Indiaglitz.com also has proof) and [17]. All the best. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, re: this edit, you removed the summary of the film's critical response as "positive". Any reason? It had been sourced. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remove the redirect and develop the article on the series. What is your opinion?PhysicsScientist (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Definitely notable enough. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been created. Anyone is free to improve it. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could use scripts to ease your editing. Copy some from this page to this to enable them. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is chaotic that the Indian media does not preserve information on character names in Indian films. But it is better to cite the film itself as source for the character name, eg: {{cite AV media | people=Fouladkar, Assad (Director) | date=May 15, 2003 | title=Lamma hikyit Maryam | trans_title = When Maryam Spoke Out | medium=Motion picture | location=Lebanon | publisher=Fouladkar, Assad}}. For more help, please see Template:Cite AV media. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792 Hi, I added a few verified links under the format you followed on the Ajith Kumar filmography page. But wait - why does each "name" need to be cited? In the Ajith article you have mostly reverted to this link [18] - which is just a brief summary of his films without any character names mentioned. Likewise Ramachandran's book on Rajinikanth does not feature any comprehensive list of character names wither. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop messing up the table? 'Raja's friend' is not a name; one might wonder who the heck is the guy (Raja)? Use common sense before reverting again. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry - Messing up the table, eh? That sounds a lot like you. Please use common sense and stop behaving inconsistently with different articles. You have gone through removing sourced information without thinking twice. Just having a look at "your" previous featured filmographies:

• Terms like "local school chairman", "himself" and even the hideous and lazy "unknown" seem to make the cut on the Rajinikanth page. Ramachandran's book doesn't even cite half the character names - yet you have found it perfect to go ahead with "unsourced" information.
• Ajith Kumar's page casually states that he is "Shashi's co-passenger". Well, one may think, who is Shashi? Well, they just have to click on the page/link they are staring at to find out.
• The recent Dhanush submission also has "himself" noted - even after you chose to go ahead and remove it from Kamal Haasan's table.

You seem to have a clear vendetta or you're just behaving deliberately inconsistent. I clearly remind you that this isn't a race to get as many featured lists as you want to have / add as many stars to your user page as you wish. Please look for accurate and clear completion, first. Editor 2050 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Race? If that was my sole aim, I would not have disagreed with you at all. Besides, I have already made it clear that I'm not willing to nominate/co-nominate the list (despite being the top contributor). I don't think any of the current editors in India are giving a tough fight to me as far as WP:FL is concerned. So all these are only going to make your accusations laughable. But before deciding on who's right, can we strive to ensure that the status quo is maintained? Not sure if I was the one who added the "local school chairman" bit in Rajini's page (I'm guessing that it was Ssven2/Kailash29792). Yes, these changes should reflect in other pages too. If you are too keen to change them, go ahead and make the necessary changes. All that said, agree with the 'himself' part. It seems you are deliberately violating WP:V. If this behaviour continues, be ready to face blocks. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry - Wait, wow. I'm deliberately avoiding WP:V - despite adding all those verified YouTube links? Well, you seem to have incorrectly assumed that Ramachandran's book has all of Rajinikanth's character names listed - and then gone ahead and used it as a mass source. I should probably head to that page and remove all the character names - as none of them actually have a verifiable source. Is that okay? Should I do that? Would that be maintaining the status quo too? Editor 2050 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was you: [19]. Now tell me how is this not a deliberate violation of WP:V. As I said earlier, it's not a case of WP:OBVIOUS. Btw, where have I stated that Naman's book has the character names of all his films? It has been used wherever it was deemed applicable, not as a 'mass' source as you claim. To answer your final point, the list would not have passed the FLC if that was the case; it was scrutinized by editors who are at least ten times better than you at reviewing. What makes me even more surprising is that you fail to see the column being supported by YT links and Naman's book. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry - How is that exactly violating WP:V? That was done because her name was removed without explanation. You cannot legitimately expect a film reviewer to list the name of every single character in their review - especially those who appear briefly on-screen. Now, tell me, how would you source that? I doubt any of those editors had access to Naman's incomplete book or were anal enough to scream for sources for each and every film from the 1970s! (while proceeding to insert their made up own character names - "Zamindar?" [20]) The column has 12 links to YT out of 160 Rajinikanth films. Let's say about 20 have been covered by the modern media and have online reviews. What about the rest? How will one ever know that Rajini was actually called Murugan in Kavikkuyil (1977)? Editor 2050 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim smacks of naivety. You're editing here for six years without even getting the basics right, but I'm not surprised. The guideline clearly states that, even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Further, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. REPEAT: it lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and not with the one who removes it. Simply put, if you're unable to find sources for a claim it shouldn't be added. Is it that hard to understand? As for Naman's book, I'm sure you haven't read it. The book has the summaries of many of his films. In case of Kavikkuyil, isn't it clear that the film (and character name) is cited using 'Chapter: 1977' of the book? Care to check the free preview in Google Books? I own that book in my kindle. Not sure what your problem is. —Vensatry _(talk) 05:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Cool. I used an incorrect example there. I will go through and edit out any unsourced material. "Your claim smacks of naivety. You're editing here for six years without even getting the basics right, but I'm not surprised" - right, okay, cool. Also things like "stage actor", "roadside singer", "Babu's son" are ACTUALLY FINE when looking at featured lists like Brad Pitt filmography, Jessica Chastain on screen and stage or Charlize Theron filmography. That was the main problem I had with your activity - the insistence to take away material which helps pages look and feel more complete - anyway, it's up to you now. I wish you all the best on your process of accumulating badges and stars to your home page to make it look pretty and feel self-accomplishing. Editor 2050 (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at total loss here. If demonstrating the importance of WP:V and WP:BURDEN makes me irresponsible/inconsistent (in your dictionary), I'm happy to be categorised as one. Second, how on the earth are my actions going to ease the FLC process (so that I can accumulate badges to my user page)? Care to explain? As far as I can see, it's only to make it tougher. All that I can say is read WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:OSE. Re I wish you all the best on your process of accumulating badges and stars to your home page to make it look pretty and feel self-accomplishing.: Sure, but that shouldn't be a problem for you, isn't it? Clear symptoms of WP:BSI. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

I am undertaking a copy edit of this article for Kailash29792. I wonder, as a courtesy, if you would mind not making edits to it until I am finished and have removed the GOCE In Use tag at the top of the article? Also, Wikipedia's MOS suggests that only one instance of a term needs to be linked. I am going through removing duplicate links. Please do not restore them. Thank you.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, re: this, please don't use the 2 switch when using the Reflist template. What looks good on your browser doesn't necessarily look good on other users' browsers, and community consensus prefers that web browsers determine the number of columns based on screen size, not forcing them to only display 2. 30em is the standard default if columns are necessary. See Template:Reflist instructions. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for figuring this out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be too formal these days, so i'll keep it straight. Hope you would throw some comments here. Pavanjandhyala 10:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, re: this, I'm curious where your summary that the film received critical acclaim comes from. I don't see it in the reference you provided, but maybe I'm missing something. Since I don't want to erroneously suggest that you pulled the summary out of whole cloth, I'm hoping you could please take a moment to edify me. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792 was kind enough to resolve this matter for me here. E2050, I want you to know that I'm not going out of my way to raise issues with you, and I certainly have nothing against you. You work hard and your improvements are greatly appreciated. I do however think clear edit summaries as well as more attention to direct sourcing would be very helpful to editors such as myself who operate from the fringes of the very difficult subject area of Indian entertainment articles. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm associated and hope that's not an issue. Purely inspired from you. Learning everyday, Thanks for your concern. Intention is not to promote but to make sure all the information is rightly available. Editor3050 (talk)

That is the official title (as of now) of Vikram's upcoming 53rd film, courtesy this site. Feel free to create an article. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was asked to complete the plot of this article but I haven't seen the film. Perhaps you might be interested or could ask someone else, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or is that the film's full title? I think it is Kaala Karikaalan, as the posters read. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you User:Official Google Editor? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered possible copyright violation(s). Some or all of the content you added in a recent edit to Kaala (2018 film) in this edit appears to have been copy pasted from this source and has been removed.

Please remember that you must write in your own words. We cannot copy and paste from other websites. If I have made an error, please accept my apologies.

For further information, please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you have questions, please ask.

Anna Frodesiak, you have cited WP:MIRROR sources, and suspect him? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kailash29792. I'm just checking that right now. A lot of the sources are Youtube. That site is blocked where I am, so I am now asking at IRC to inspect the sources. Would you like to help? I could sure use the assistance. This is either a big problem, or a simple reverse copyvio issue. This editor is 6 years 1 month 15,254 edits. Copyvios would be a shock. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Kailash29792. Thanks for the revert. I should have checked each ref. I used the Earwig tool and just reverted without checking. It is like 40 C here and my brain must have melted. Sorry Editor 2050. My apologies. Best wishes! I'm going out for icecream. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm GSS-1987. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Prithiveeraj, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

GSS (talk|c|em) 16:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason related to WP:NFF, filmography tables must not include films that are not yet into production. That includes Paris Paris, which begins in October. --Kailash29792 (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, presumed it was launched so that would be fine - a poster was also released. A temporary redirect to Ramesh Aravind or Queen may be an option, if we can't keep it. Editor 2050 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of S. Sashikanth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.11% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for October: Women and disability Healthcare Geofocus: Nordic countries Continuing from month to month: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on Indian actresses or whatever during this month please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the Indian list in the sub page on Asia at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 02:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]