User talk:SuriyaCR7Fan

October 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kaappaan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diffs: [1] There is no authoritative source in the world of Indian cinema financials, but accepting a primary source is totally unacceptable because of the legacy of corruption and promotion in this industry. Your correction, while perhaps well-meaning, is ignorant of longstanding Wikipedia principles, especially in the world of Indian film articles. Do not restore this problematic content again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear brand-new user, I have been editing Indian film articles for several years and I am very familiar with community preferences. You are not. This edit is not motivated by any knowledge of how we work at Wikipedia. We do not use primary sources for Indian film financials, as primary sources have an inherent conflict to inflate box office figures. Surely you are aware of the corruption in this industry, right?[2] Though there is no Rentrak or official central auditing source, box office figures are derived from estimates made by box office analysts. Regurgitating a producer's figure is not sufficient. This isn't an ego thing, this is a "this is how we do things" thing. Note also that your reversion linked above constitutes edit-warring. When content you submit is reverted, the onus is on you to seek WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion by opening a discussion about it. This is part of our bold, revert, discuss process. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 7aum Arivu, you may be blocked from editing. Diff: [3] Your restoration of this reference is not consistent with our reliable sources guidelines or with WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. We don't care what random blogs have to say, we only care what reliable mainstream sources with established reputations for fact-checking have to say. If you resubmit problematic references again, your editing privileges are likely to be interrupted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Once your block has expired, you might want to open a discussion at WT:ICTF to see if other members of the Indian film editing community think that the sources you've submitted are in any way reliable. But if you keep submitting the same problematic sources without consensus to do so, future blocks will get longer.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2019 (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).

SuriyaCR7Fan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for my disruptive editing. But I still believe I was right in stating my opinion. What is wrong in giving a lower limit and upper limit for a film's gross when the total is disputed. Figures from Cinetrak and Andhra Box Office are used by prominent publications such as International Business Times. I am still learning. So forgive my mistakes and kindly unblock me.

Decline reason:

This block has expired. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:13, 26 October 2019 (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.

I'm willing to endorse your unblock as a show of good faith, but you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with presenting box office figures as a range, this has to with you using sources that are not consistent with Wikipedia standards, and then getting an attitude about how correct you are. Faceless websites like Andhra Box Office and Cinetrak, etc. are not consistent with our reliable sourcing guidelines. I've tried to explain that to you, but you haven't been receptive. If you agree not to make changes without using established sources, (and that means you shouldn't be pointing to a mainstream source that is quoting Andhra), then I would agree to your unblock. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about agenda-driven editing

These changes are absolutely inappropriate. You do not get to unilaterally decide that a generally reliable source is not accurate and instead replace it with some other source that better fits your personal bias/opinion/feeling/whatever. That is academically dishonest and shameful editing. If you have an agenda to drive down a film's financial figures and drive up another film's financial figures, that is intolerable here. It's also remarkably fishy, particularly when in your last unblock request you wrote "What is wrong in giving a lower limit and upper limit for a film's gross when the total is disputed", apparently aware that a range can present a more honest picture of a film's performance, but then inexplicably ignoring that here. Be more mindful moving forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that you need to stop edit-warring. When another editor reverts your changes, your next move should be to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus for the change you wish to institute, not to keep resubmitting the content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at 7aum Arivu, you may be blocked from editing. Diff: [4] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not add back"

Hi there, re: this, antagonistic statements like "do not add back" are of little value at Wikipedia. If someone wants to add back that content, they can, and you would then be in a position to have to discuss why it should be removed, per our "BRD" or Bold, Revert, Discuss process. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off SuriyaCR7Fan (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should also avoid personal attacks, as they are very quickly likely to result in your privileges being pulled again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors, specifically here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions, although you might want to consider whether or not community editing is something you're actually capable of doing. So far you haven't really demonstrated the proper temperament for it, and since nobody is requiring you to edit, you might find other hobbies more fulfilling.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malavika Mohanan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok bro SuriyaCR7Fan (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I suggest that you refrain from referring to other wiki users as 'bro', They are not your drinking buddy, Suggest you stick with neutral terms like they/them. -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 09:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again I don't think you should be using this authoritative tone on Wikipedia. You are only a 13 days old noob on Wiki. Not an administrator. I hope you will keep that in mind in future. SuriyaCR7Fan (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Its in wiki guidelines, You are supposed to use gender neutral terms while referring to other editors, And even then, You cannot refer to a male editor as "bro" without their personal consent, And the cool thing about wiki is you dont need to be an administrator to have common sense :) -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 16:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so bothered about a reply I gave to someone else. Or do you have nothing better to do in life than sit around and showcase your knowledge about Wikipedia? 😂 SuriyaCR7Fan (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Master (2021 film).

You seem to have a long history of unconstructive editing, Please read the following wiki guidelines to have an idea of what wiki is supposed to be: WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NPOV. Additionally, If you have a non-neutral opinion about a person/topic, Please refrain from making any form of contribution to said article, Your edits on various cinema articles all seem to be direct violations of WP:COI

Calling other editors or their sources as "stupid" like you did here, Or declaring popular sources to be irrelavant and reverting edits just because you disagree with them is not welcome here. Wiki articles are supposed to be neutral and open sources of knowledge for the internet, Not a medium for you to push your opinion, On a personal note, Edit warring and vandalizing box office data of movies makes you look so childish and immature, I am trying to be in good taste here, One more act of vandalism and i'll request that you be blocked again, And this time, It will be a permanent one.-- KindCowboy69 ☮ 10:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't feel like I should take block threats from a school boy hiding behind a 13 day old Wikipedia account seriously. SuriyaCR7Fan (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please behave in good taste with other editors and learn to respect others, This is not a youtube comment section for your trolling, This is not a forum, You are vandalizing a project that is the collective result of millions of editors and their struggles,

In the meagre "13 days" i have been on wikipedia,

I've made atleast a hundred edits
Protected a page that covered a genocide on sri lankan tamils from atleast three different accounts.^[1]
successfully detected and brought down two sockpuppets.^[2]
Wrote the entire plot for the very same movie page you are currently vandalizing^[3]
Never behaved in bad taste with anyone and even made a friend with a person that mistook my name to be a sexual reference

You sir, in the meanwhile,

Got blocked by administrators for blatant violations despite repetitive warnings, Twice.
Was arrogant, and rude to fellow wikipedians despite their kind and patient behaviour with you, Including this, I fail to see why @Cyphoidbomb: did not move to block you again, You are shamelessly exploiting the patience of decent editors.

Your biggest contribs to wiki account to nothing more than vandalizing irrelevant box office collection datasets of irrelevant movies. And your clear fanboy behaviour, As a matter of fact, There is no reason i shouldn't be reporting you on WP:UAA, "CR7Fan". I am only not doing that since i'll be reporting you for a permanent block instead.

I might be a mere college student, I might be a 'kid' as you refer me to, But your mental maturity deserves some serious mental help, And i am saying this not to ridicule you, But out of genuine concern

Its a simple thing mate, You are a classic case of WP:NOTHERE, And i have no other option than to prosecute you, Offcourse i am a mere kid after all, A real administrator would come around soon, Investigate, And block you for good.-- KindCowboy69 ☮ 13:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too long didn't read SuriyaCR7Fan (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh its not for you anna, Its for the administrator who will be reviewing your case :) -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 15:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seri da thambi SuriyaCR7Fan (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anna, Do remember to indent your replies by adding : -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 16:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear thambi, Stop trying to be an insufferable know-it-all. People never give value to little pedants like you. Take that advice from this anna. SuriyaCR7Fan (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely making a helpful suggestion, I try to be in good taste with people who are not rude to others, I dont interact this way with most other editors, Using some weasel term and making personal attacks will not help your case, You have been blocked twice before, And yet you failed to rehabilitate, I ll make it simple anna, Dont be rude to others, This rule is not exclusive to wikipedia, Additionally, Read this: WP:AWW :) -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 16:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gross

Re: this edit and specifically the edit summary: "Gross is only updated after the full run", while I see that you capitulated on the matter, the claim you made is unfounded, and I wanted to make that clear. Gross figures are almost always presented in the infobox as they unfold, and not just in Indian articles, but in articles for films worldwide. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mullivaikal_Muttram

[2] ttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_truth_must_prevail

[3] ttp://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Master_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1000541621

[1]

[2]

[3]