Talk:Total Siyapaa/Archive 1

Screen count

As per older references 1,600 screens. As per Boxoffice india 850 and as per Talking movies 1,000 plus screens. Is not it too confusing? Box office india apparently more reliable. Ibnebatutaji (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. Yup BOI.com more reliable. —Soham (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Pre release buzz

Pre release buzz for the movie was strong see http://www.bharatmovies.com/bollywood/trailers/gulaab-gang-total-siyappa-preview.htm http://newszoner.com/total-siyapaa-opening-day-collection-opening-day-business-report/ http://www.blogtobollywood.com/queen-gulaab-gang-and-total-siyapaa-box-office-predictions/ http://boxofficecollection.in/2014/03/05/total-siyapaa-box-office-expected-collection-first-day-response-prediction.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnebatutaji (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I'm creating this section to get a consensus on the critical reception of this movie. The best source I can find is the following, which summarizes all the top critics views, and give average 1.9/5: http://www.bollymoviereviewz.com/2014/03/total-siyapaa-review.html But when i put it in the article, it is being repeatedly deleted. It is being replace by the following sources:

1. http://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/bollywood/total-siyappa-movie-review-12415.html (subash jha)
2. http://www.cinemanewstoday.com/total-siyappa-trailer-review-indo-pak-peace-keeping-force/ (this is a review of the trailer)
3. http://entertainment.com/total-siyapaa-movie-review.html (does not exist)
4. http://movies.ndtv.com/movie-reviews/total-siyapaa-movie-review-932 (same as review 1)

the subash jha review is already included in the bollymoviereviewz link.

hmm, i tried removing the broken link ref, and was reverted. i tried removing the review of the trailer, that got reverted too. i tried to remove the duped review, that got reverted as well. not sure what logic Ibnebatutaji is using.--vvarkey (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So please stop putting those refs back and claiming the movie is getting a good reception from critics. unfortunately, it is not. --vvarkey (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Let other users respond to the talk page and wait for the consensus before you revert or edit war again. Cheers Ibnebatutaji (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

you said the content i put on the page is not in my link? please read http://www.bollymoviereviewz.com/2014/03/total-siyapaa-review.html

it clearly says the average rating is 1.9/5, it also includes the 1 actual review you put back (the rest are invalid). please explain yourself. --vvarkey (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

bollymoviereviewz.com is not a reliable source. Reporting on Admin Notice boards with an intent of letting down the movie on the name of promotion can not help. If you having any thing personal against movie makers then WP is not a place to edit war. Even if reviews are mixed you can not put them in the lead paragraphs. Ibnebatutaji (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

so why does the lead now say that the critical reception is "good"? Let's compromise and you remove all mention of critical reception from the lead for now. --vvarkey (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Giving remarks such as movie received rotten tomatoes from critics or 1.9 out of 5 critic rating is not the way we do on Wikipedia. Additionally De-promotional stuff for a real life hard work investment is discouraged on WP. We neither promote nor de promote any thing here on WP. Your hyper activism against the movie on admin notice board clearly reflects Bad faith editing to let down a movie. Compromise is not the practice we follow, it is the WP consensus with other users for which you have to wait for their response. Thanks Ibnebatutaji (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If critics give the movie an average rating of 1.9/5, that is what the article should say. you said this should not be in the lead, and i said ok, remove all mention of critical reception as a compromise. this is how consensus is reached on wikipedia. why are you insisting that the lead should say the critical response is good, when it is not? It is not Wikipedia's job to promote this movie. i request you to please remove mention of the critical reception, to show good faith. thanks. --vvarkey (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not between both of us. Edit war is between you and four to five WP users please see the article history. we never give rating scales on WP instead we either use wording like good reviews or mixed reviews. Get the consensus with whom you are edit warring and wait for their response. Ibnebatutaji (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

why did you undo my edit where i removed a broken link as a reference? --vvarkey (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you have created doubts about your editing apparently not based on good faith assumption, please avoid any further edit war on the article. Wait for WP consensus to avoid any account blocking. Ibnebatutaji (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

i was editing a section that has nothing to do with this, and you've reverted all my changes again? please understand that you have no right to ban me from editing this page!--vvarkey (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We never allow with out good faith assumption any edit. since you are a controversial editor on this article unless you get WP consensuses you could not edit or revert or delete any content. Please understand and do not force me for strict action against vandalism. Ibnebatutaji (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what good faith means. please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith --vvarkey (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We fully understand and comply this and strongly recommend you to appear as a partial editor with out taking any sides. I accept your Hyper bolie minor edit and with all my positivity again advice you to wait and get WP concensus. All the best. Ibnebatutaji (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

there are many instances of hyperbole text in the article. i am going to clean them out. i request you not to blindly revert my changes. you are so way over the 3-revert rule, it is comical.--vvarkey (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

looks like another editor is going to review. so i am not going to make this change. --vvarkey (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No further edit from you or your future possible sock other wise you will get blocked for sock puppetry. Unless you get consensus you are hereby again restrained from any edit in the name of Hyperbole. Cheers Ibnebatutaji (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 March 2014

1. Please remove the call to a non-existent file which is directly above a commented out reference which should probably also be removed which is directly above the "cast" header:
   • [[File:Total Siyapaa Official Trailer.ogv|thumb|Total Siyapaa an upcoming Bollywood film starring Ali Zafar and Yami Gautam]]
   • <!-- [http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ali-zafar-plays-rockstar-in-aman-ki-asha/1110621/ Ali Zafar plays rockstar in 'Aman Ki Asha' - Indian Express]</ref> -->
2. I was going to ask to add the following to the beginning of the "Critical reception" section, but it is not rated on Rotten Tomatoes yet:
   • {{Rotten Tomatoes score|2727028|all_in_one_plus_consensus}}
   • Which will render as: There was no consensus data on Rotten Tomatoes for this title. (Is this an error?)

Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Huon (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Please see the talk page history for details. Ibnebatutaji (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ZORDANLIGHTER and Whistlingwoods socks of user Vvarkey. Ibnebatutaji (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Making unfounded accusations of WP:SOCK is considered to be a violation of our No Personal Attacks and can lead to a block. Either file your WP:SPI request, or stop. You're simply using claims of "sock" to undermine their discussion at this point, which is immoral and improper DP 09:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Dangerous Panda i was off all the day so was not able to reply to your message on my Talk page and when I logged in the evening i saw you blocked me with out even giving me enough time to justify . This is un fair. You are an admin so you are in the best position to report some one for socking. Me in good faith tried to warn these socks instead of reporting them. Look at their pattern of editing. They only want to put negative reviews and earlier on tried to delete good reviews of the movie from the article(See the history). They want to put negativity about the movie opening but they never tried to give refrences like these which say other wise for example read.. Total Siyapaa has topped the international business chart, while Queen and Gulaab Gang landed in the second and third places, respectively. Read more at: http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2014/total-siyapaa-queen-gulaab-gang-collection-overseas-box-office-133883.html . Now Panda I question you should we allow socking on wikipedia keeping in view pattren of these 3 editors. Second question are they good faith editors. I dont think so but you are a better judge. Respect and Thanks. User Ibnebatutaji — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.187.61 (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly not a good faith editor at this point. I highly recommend that you and your blockevading sockpuppets stay away from this article, even after the block expires DP 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ibnebatutaji,I never tried to remove positive reviews but I wanted to add large number of negative reviews. Your accusation is baseless as when i wanted to edit the page , I found that the page was already protected because of some previous edit war.So I started posting in this talk page. How was I supposed to know that editing in Wikipedia has so many rules even if I am telling the truth with valid references. But they have a system which I will take some time to understand. Your sock accusation is baseless as thevvarkley is more expert while I am a novice. Your comment shows that you support 3 positive reviews but you are unabashedly ignoring large number of negative reviews from reputed critics. Your theory that few positive reviews should be given more importance than large number of negative reviews ; doesn't make any sense. Who told you that Wikipedia supports only positive reviews and ignores negative reviews. Your bias is clearly showing in your comment . You gave only one link. I am giving four links for DANGEROUSPANDA http://www.saharasamay.com/entertainment-news/676549246/hollywood-movie-300-rise-of-an-empire-pips-queen-gulaab-gang-and.html http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/queen-box-office-collection-gulaab-gang-box-office-collection-total-siyappa-box-office-collection/1/347696.html http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/total-siyapaa-lags-behind-gulaab-gang-queen-1st-friday-box-office-collections/ http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/box-office/2014/gulaab-gang-queen-total-siyapaa-1-day-collection-box-office-133669.html http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/542603/20140310/300-rise-empire-box-office-collection-queen.htm--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 March 2014

The data given is wrong .The movie received negative reviews from critics.The administrators like Ibnebatutaji (talk) is supporting minority positive reviews but ignoring large number of negative reviews from well established sources.It seems Ibnebatutaji (talk) thinks I am vvarkey (talk).

The links of the movie's review from various well respected critics of reputed news agencies are given below.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/total-siyappa-movie-review-yami-gautam-ali-zafar/1/347282.html

http://www.abplive.in/gadget/2014/03/06/article273444.ece/Film-review-Total-Siyappa-is-total-madness#.UyA75vn23IU

http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/total-siyappa-lamest-indopak-match/article5764167.ece

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140308/entertainment-movie-review/article/movie-review-total-siyappa-loud-no-punch

http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/reviews/movie-review-total-siyapaa-is-a-waste-of-time/article1-1192366.aspx

http://www.india.com/showbiz/total-siyapaa-movie-review-not-funny-not-romantic-not-worth-a-watch-20355/

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/542287/20140307/total-siyapaa-movie-review-critics-ali-yami.htm

http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/total-siyapaa-movie-review-ali-zafar-and-yami-gautams-romedy-lacks-both-romance-and-comedy/

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-film-review-total-siyapaa-is-a-wasted-opportunity-1967663

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/entertainment/bollywood/Film-review-Total-Siyappa/articleshow/31629541.cms

http://www.desimartini.com/reviews/smita-vyas-kumar-total-siyapaa/rd24800md3218.htm

http://www.emirates247.com/entertainment/bollywood-review-indo-pak-romance-in-total-siyappa-lacks-soul-2014-03-05-1.540605

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/ENT-total-siyapaa-movie-review-not-worth-your-time-and-money-4543158-NOR.html

http://post.jagran.com/total-siyapaa-movie-review-ali-yami-fail-to-impress-1394113994

http://www.filmsofindia.com/viewnews-3452

• You're required to state EXACTLY the change that must be made, the exact wording, and the immediate ref or ref's that support it. Simply saying "change the info" is not acceptable, nor can it be acted upon ES&L 11:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay , I think this will take time, as I don't know how to do this . Since I have already given the reference links above and below, I do wish some Wikipedia user does this instead of me. The critical reception section and Box Office section needs to be edited. But I am not able to do it. --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(I've put back this request from user ZORDANLIGHTER that was deleted --vvarkey (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 March 2014

The mdash used after "Anupam Kher and Kiron Kher in supporting roles" should not be followed with a space. Please remove the space. – Soham (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC) – Soham (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

At last, a sensible request on this page; Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2014

There is name mistake in the "Cast" section: Name of Yami Gautam is not Aisha, instead the correct name is Asha. See the first line of the following link: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/total-siyappa-movie-review-yami-gautam-ali-zafar/1/347282.html

Faroqq (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right but I think many other sources used Aasha. Xcrescent9 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I just checked the available sources, and the Deccan Chronicle, the New York Times, and the British Board of Film Classification agree with India Today that it's "Asha". That's also the title of a love song mentioned by a couple of music review sources. I saw no sources for either "Aisha" or "Aasha". Huon (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2014

The contents of the SECOND PARAGRAPH of this section needs to be changed Total Siyapaa#Critical Reception

The updated information is given below along with RELIABLE REFERENCES placed accordingly.

Critical Reception

Total Siyapaa received mostly negative reviews from top Indian critics.. Rishabh Chakravorty of india.com stated " Not funny, not romantic, not worth a watch". INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES made a review round up of the movie and asked readers to "Avoid it!".Rajeev Masand of IBNLIVE gave the movie rating of 2/5. Tushar Joshi of DNA wrote "Total Siyapaa' is a wasted opportunity " . International critics also panned the movie.RACHEL SALTZ of NEWYORKTIMES wrote "In ‘Total Siyapaa,’ Mishaps Overshadow a Romance ". abplive and Subhash Jha of NDTV gave positive reviews for the movie . Overall the reviews were negative

ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Dear user Do not remove my comment again, I feel you need to further polish and re word the recommended edit because it is not as per our standard. Xcrescent9 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

InSPITE of the fact that I am providing solid references I am unable to change , as every time someone says this is not right. I am getting tired. If everyone wants that Wikipedia should publish all wrong information then go ahead. I am done. By the way I have seen Critical Reception section of many movies. And I think I did as good as them. I am not William Shakespeare that I will use flowery words.If any experienced Wikipedia user reads this please check my previous posts on this page. The reference links are given. So please kindly edit the Critical Reception Section which will please Wki administrators--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you to use sand box for some time and learn how to make valuable contributions to wiki pedia in future. you also need fair amount of time and effort on your English grammar. For any assistance you may leave a message on my talk page. Xcrescent9 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I had to quote the exact words used by the movie critics. If you think : grammar is wrong , then blame those critics not me.--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case it amounts to copy right violation and such infringement is not permissible on wikipedia. Xcrescent9 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  You are saying copyright violation. i have only quoted the
headlines which I am supposed to do. I am not copy pasting the 

entire article. And I am not taking any credit for myself. I have

given the links of my sources and also mentioned the names of 

those writers or movie critics. Your accusation is ridiculous. In that case every Wikipedia pages should be removed as they are taken from some outside source. Give me one WP page which is

original and not published anywhere.In all movie pages the plot
of the movie is written. In that case the screenplay writers 

should sue Wikipedia, but do they? --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

we do not put head lines, we simply re phrase content of WP RS. In your case majority of links are not WP RS. I again recommend you to use sand box for some time and learn how to make valuable contributions to WP in future. you also need fair amount of time and effort on your English grammar. As a new user you should not enter the complex process of requesting admin edits. A better choice for you should be any other un protected page. For any assistance you may leave a message on my talk page. Xcrescent9 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please check the links of my previous edit request on 11 march about the same topic.But in this section clicking on the links won't take you to the website.The links will work if they are inserted in main page. Right now these are in talk page's edit request so clicking them is not working as eatsshootsandleaves asked me to put the references on the right place. I followed his instruction. If anyone wants to see the links then click on the edit link on top and they will see reference url which they can copy paste on start page and visit those standard news websites where this movie's reviews are available.How did you conclude that those links are not reliable. You think reputed top news channels and top newspapers of India don't have any right to review an Indian movie.--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Oh my god, you two are trying too hard. Both of you have POV's and not "N"POV. One is trying to establish the fact the film failed and the other is trying to establish the fact it did'n't instead succeed. My question to, X, if you knew that not using exact quotes amounts to copy-vio then why did you ask Zordan to modify the quotes? My suggestion to both of is to edit with a neutral point of view instead of holding a positive and negative bias respectively. Xcrescent9, you're not a administrator, then don't act like one, that kind of bossin' around is not acceptable here. If Zordan is making a request let an admin to respond to it. – Soham (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

**** Soham Zordanlighter is a new user and I am helping him out as I corrected your mistake on your edit request. Good or bad reviews are not my concern. We must assist new users specially with bad English skills. For any assistance you may leave a message on my talk page. Xcrescent9 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

First time I am seeing a user who's account is only 4 days old helping out another. WP is not for improving english skill, though if with years of editing experience it does improve. You are either competent or you're not. As for correcting the 14 February one, it was a typing error if you know that. Administrators are there to help out new users with good-faith which I think Zordan is and you should leave the job up to them since you're account is only 4 days old unless .... Stop replying to edit requests, it is an administrator's job, not yours, I repeat, not yours. It seems you care so much about newcomers that you're ending up biting them. – Soham (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User Soham I had been editing WP since 2006 using IP. Not a crime if I registered a week ago. Same question could be raised about User Zordanlighter. He just started using account four days ago. He directly landed on Total Siyapaa Talk page with out editing any other WP page and immediately he is pushing unreliably sourced content with poor english. User Soham I ignore the error you made on your admin edit request about movie's music launch date because as a community at large we are helping hands. For any assistance you may leave a message on my talk page. Xcrescent9 (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh no response, now tired and sleeping for eight hours. will log in around 1430 Gmt till then User Zordanlighter you have good time to re group your thoughts and read WP RS and re-word the proposed edit. I also recommend to use word mixed reviews instead of aggressive tone like negative reviews which we discourage on WP so that we can have WP Consensus which will help you getting admin acceptance. See you. For any assistance you may leave a message on my talk page. Xcrescent9 (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be too much if I asked you the contribution page for the IP dating back to 2006? You still haven't stopped bossing around. Please take out the "For any assistance you may leave a message on my talk page" from your replies henceforth. The work of the community is to build an encyclopedia and not to be a helping hand, there are NGO's for that. Its a surprise and a pity (simultaneously) that you're editing from 2006 and don't know what the true purpose of Wikipedia is. You claim to edit for 8 years and you still use WP RS instead of standard linking. – Soham (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Accordint to xcrescent my sources are unreliable. You want to say
that movie critics of news agencies India Today , The Hindu ,

Deccan Chronicle, Hindustan Times, Indiacom, International Business Times, Daily News and Analysis, Mumbai Mirror, HT Media ,Dainik Bhaskar ,CNN-IBN

are unreliable. 
You are calling me new user. If I am new then I have to accept
false information about critical reception and box office 

opening.And you think I am having biased views against the movie.In

the penultimate line  I have written " abplive and Subhash Jha of 

NDTV gave positive reviews for the movie". Among the top movie critics of India I found only two critics giving the movie positive

review while I found more than 50 links from well established
sources giving negative reviews. Now I have considered only
English websites.
If I consider Hindi newspapers then the negative reviews will
increase to large extent. I don't have time to copy paste URL
of all websites.Positive reviews are only (2-5)% while negative
reviews are
almost (90-95)%. There are some movies which are rejected by
majority 

like Disaster Movie , Epic Movie--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Going by ZORDANLIGHTER's sources it's obvious that the reception section needs a serious overhaul. However, I'm not entirely happy with his text and choice of sources and would instead suggest the following. Huon (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

Total Siyapaa received mostly negative reviews, with critics suggesting to avoid this movie. Reviews of the acting were mixed, with the Hindustan Times lauding it while the Deccan Chronicle and Bollywood Life were critical of Ali Zafar's and Yami Gautam's performances, respectively. Kirron Kher's performance was seen as one of the strong points of the movie. The lack of a solid plot, the lack of attention to detail and the bad comical timing were seen as major drawbacks. The film was largely seen as unfunny and not living up to the trailer.

References

Yup, the layout suggested above is way better. The current situation is a classic example of cherrypicking. – Soham (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Its imperative critical reception section needs to be changed .All administrators take note Huon (talk) DP ES&L--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello all the brothers Huon, Soham and ZORDANLIGHTER. Sorry for three hours delayed log in from what I promised I am late due to real life office work and now my WP office is on. Huon with all due respect for you as a WP admin, I have few objections to the recommended edit if you allow me. can I comment? Xcrescent9 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Xcrescent9, sure you can comment. What are your objections?

ZORDANLIGHTER, the strange format of your comments is due to your line breaks and due to beginning a new line with a space. You should use colons for indentation and make sure that you don't have any line breaks in your text. Huon (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Huon, Thanks for allowing me. It was a very kind example setting gesture by you. I have found so many links. I want to share those for your attention. Accordingly I want to propose a fresh edit request but since you have already proposed an edit, I am a bit hesitant to counter propose a WP Admin. It may also face strong resistant and harsh statements by ZORDANLIGHTER because of his new career in WP and may be by Soham. So tell me should I propose a fresh edit or should just provide the links with objections to edit recommended by you. I strongly request for fresh edit request but what ever you allow out of two, I will accept and proceed. Xcrescent9 (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Xcrescent9 is now making personal attacks by telling I have a new career in Wikipedia Greedo8 . And I think critics of reputed news agencies are more important than personal blogs.I made a thorough search and found only ndtv and abplive giving positive reviews.How he found more positive reviews i have to see.But I have to make his job difficult, so I am giving links of other negative reviews which i didn't give previously.After these links administrators will understand who is right. http://www.villagevoice.com/2014-03-12/film/total-siyapaa/ , http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/total-siyapaa-continues-to-perform-poor-1st-tuesday-box-office-collections/ , http://www.koimoi.com/reviews/total-siyapaa-review/ , http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/review-total-siyapaa-total-faux-pas-is-more-like-it/20140307.htm , http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/total_siyapaa_2014/ , http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/criticreview/id/568655 , http://www.desimartini.com/movies/total-siyaapaa/md3218.htm , I have more links of negative reviews in non english languages which I am not posting now.http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/13-Mar-2014/total-siyapaa-opens-to-mixed-reviews-moviegoers-treated-to-taj-cinema-s-revival , http://www.thenewstribe.com/2014/03/07/ali-zafars-total-siyapaa-fails-to-impress-indian-media-gets-negative-reviews/ , http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/21356/total-siyapaa-despite-a-pakistani-groom-and-an-indian-bride-the-movie-could-have-been-better/ , http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140308/jsp/t2/story_18057035.jsp#.UyQZifmkHsw , Now all administrators from Huon (talk) DP ES&L TO redrose is this enough? --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins do not hold any special privileges regarding content. You don't need to ask my (or any other admin's) permission before commenting on my suggestion, making edit requests or whatever else may help the article. In this particular case, though, it may be a good idea not to make a formal edit request yet but to suggest a version here on the talk page for the other editors' feedback so we can reach a consensus and only then implement it.

What I aimed for in my proposal was not just to say "Critics loved (or hated) the film" (which I also do, with a source that explicitly comments on the general critical reception, and ZORDANLIGHTER provided several other such aggregator sources above) but to provide an overview of what the critics liked and what they didn't like. Obviously not all critics agree on all aspects; particularly on the acting there was quite a bit of disagreement, which I tried to cover. I also aimed for the best sources we have; with the possible exception of bollywoodlife.com these are highly reputable newspapers and magazines, including international press. For practically every point I cite those sources for we could also add a couple less prominent sources, but that would be overkill. Huon (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not done for now: It seems that editors here are quite close to agreeing on a replacement for the current critical reception text, but that there is not agreement yet. When you have found a consensus on what to include, please reactivate this edit request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Some users are unnecessarily indulging in time wasting tactics. They don't have any reliable sources but making tall claims of sources which is impossible to provide as all links of reputed websites are already provided.I know the reason why they are doing this , but if I mention the reason administrators will say I am launching personal attack. This type of users who don't contribute but try to divert the attention from the main topic should be blocked. They are using terms like my brothers, dear user ; but this is not helping in favour of Wikipedia.--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe we have reached a consensus as xrescent who was previously objecting has now admitted his mistake: (check revision history) " 16:40, 16 March 2014‎ Xcrescent9 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,457 bytes) (-376)‎ . . (Sorry, I commented to what was already concluded by Admin. I respect the decision even though it was against me) " . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZORDANLIGHTER (talk • contribs)

Done I agree - there does seem to be a weak consensus for Huon's version, so I have replaced the "Critical reception" section with it. This does not mean that it is the final version - further improvements can be discussed here, and can be implemented if there is a consensus for them. Also, any further discussions should probably go in a new section, as this one as become quite cluttered. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Stradivarius and Huon kindly un do your decision because it was based on FRAUD played by ZORDANLIGHTER , he misrepresented my edit summary for other protected edit request for Controversy section. He used that summary to show the WP concensus by me but that is not the case. He must also be blocked for playing CHEAT. Xcrescent9 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As stated by Mr. Stradivarius, Also, any further discussions should probably go in a new section, as this one as become quite cluttered.--Whistlingwoods (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of cheating and fraud are violations of personal attacks, and can lead to your own block. You might want to rethink DP 14:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of Xcrescent9 accusations that how wrongly consensus was achieved by misrepresentation, I will suggest a middle way. Whistlingwoods on behalf of ZORDANLIGHTER (since he is blocked ) will favour current critical reception section full cherry picking of negative reviews but that was with out consensus and ignores all positive reviews. On other hand Xcrescent9 after block removal will try to put all four positive reviews. Keeping in view all the reviews from both sides,It is a clear case of Mixed average reviews i.e. a combination of good and bad reviews. This fact is also supported by http://www.indicine.com/bollywood/total-siyapaa/reviews/ which says that movie got average reviews from critics with average score of 37. In pakistan too (from where the hero of the movie belongs) it got mixed reviews from movie critics on the premier please see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/13-Mar-2014/total-siyapaa-opens-to-mixed-reviews-moviegoers-treated-to-taj-cinema-s-revival . Forth evidence of mixed reviews is IMBD rating of 6 out of 10 including nine critics see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2727028/. I think in order to wind up quickly this prolonged discussion. I request a new edit to critical reception section. Since we already know one pool stances of ZORDANLIGHTER , Whistlingwoods and Xcrescent9 no further discussion from them is invited on this proposed edit (see below).

Total Siyapaa received mixed reviews by domestic and overseas critics. Kirron Kher's performance and Ali Zafar comic timings were seen as one of the strong points of the movie. However Critics were critical on the lack of a solid plot,.

References

Mr. Stradivarius please take a quick decision to wind up this prolonged discussion. Archtexlic (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove my comment again, Archtexlic (talk), I want to mention that the critics in IMDB comes under Wikipedia blacklisted websites. And The number of negative reviews is very much more than two-three positive reviews--Whistlingwoods (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I will go with Archtexlic ArjunPatel89 (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear users I was who one contended for maintenance of previous critical reception section but I was blocked because i raised my concern over being misrepresented by ZORDEN. current critical reception section is cherry picking of negative reviews. In the light of Archtexlic referred sources I am ready to step back from my older stance and will also go with Archtexlic proposed edit. Additionally it is middle way too so not harming any one. Xcrescent9 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Xcrescent9 for showing a sacrifice for betterment of WP. Thats mature. Archtexlic (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Using terms like mature and indirectly referring others as immature is personal attack on everybody.--Whistlingwoods (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2014

Please change the current tracklist and infobox present it the section Total Siyapaa#soundtrack.

The change for both of them is given below—

Untitled

All music is composed by Ali Zafar

Total Siyapaa

No.	Title	Lyrics	Singer(s)	Length
1.	"Total Siyapaa"	Ali Zafar, Kumaar	Ali Zafar	3:06
2.	"Palat Meri Jaan"	Ali Zafar	Ali Zafar	3:44
3.	"Nahin Maloom"	Aqeel Rubi	Ali Zafar, Fariha Pervez	3:42
4.	"Asha"	Ali Zafar	Ali Zafar	3:25
5.	"Chal Buleya"	Bulleh Shah	Ali Zafar	3:24
Total length:				17:21

References

– Soham (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear User I found sound track release date 14 February 2014. Xcrescent9 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out, yes it is 14 and not 24. Actually 1 and 2 are situated besides each other. – Soham (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Xcrescent9 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Huon (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Huon, but where? – Soham (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It took a moment; I had to remove the archive URL because archive.il is blacklisted due to linkspam. The original website still seems to be live, so there's no need to archive it right now. If archiving is seen as necessary, we will have to pick another archive. Huon (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I should have waited. About archive.is, I did'n't know about the link blacklisting. Thanks. – Soham (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2014

Please insert this with reference under a new section controversy.

A Hindu right wing organisation Janajagruti Samiti has demanded a ban on the film for its alleged 'anti-national' content. E Niwas, the film's director, said he isn't aware of the HJS's objection."All I can say is that the dialogues aren't meant to be taken in the literal sense. It's a film. We are not judging any country or community through it,"

References

Xcrescent9 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The second half seems rather problematic on copyright grounds (you even copied the comma at the end of the quote, which does not make any grammatical sense here), the first is problematic for its wording. It suggests "anti-national" is a quote, which it isn't. The source also does not call Hindu Janajagruti Samiti a right-wing organization, and while others have done so, this article is not the place to discuss HJS' status. Finally, I don't think this needs a separate section; I'd say the section(s) on the film's reception will do well enough. Huon (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is not a single mention in the cited article that it is a controversy; doing so by a Wikipedia editor contravenes our policy on no original research. – Soham (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Soham Please see these links also support this controversy http://www.madhyamam.com/en/node/21600 http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/bollywood/hindu-organisation-seeks-ban-on-total-siyapaa_152012.html http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/2014/hindu-organisation-demands-ban-on-total-siyapaa-134077.html http://theoryoflife.com/connect/hindu-organisation-demands-ban-total-206/ http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/slide-show-1-hindu-organisation-seeks-ban-on-total-siyapaa/20140313.htm http://africanentertainer.com/india/news/hindu-organisation-demands-ban-on-total-siyapaa http://www.news.nom.co/hindu-organisation-seeks-ban-on-total-8338529-news/ http://www.news.nom.co/why-are-hindu-organisations-seeking-a-8338294-news/ http://www.news.nom.co/hindu-organisation-demands-ban-on-total-8338511-news/ http://www.news.nom.co/hindu-organisation-seeks-ban-on-total-8338735-news/ http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/hindu-organisation-seeks-ban-on-ali-zafar-yami-gautams-total-siyapaa/ and there are hundreds more link just google search it. Xcrescent9 (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Huge heap of third-rate sources, with 2 rs's. Does any (the reliable ones, you see) of it contain the word controversy in it? Wikipedia editors cannot label anything as controversy unless explicitly stated by the source to be a controversy. – Soham (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• As for "there are hundreds more link just google search it" – shit of the World Wide Web does not find a place here. Plus the burden lies on you, the editor to add sources, not me.
  I have deliberately avoided using wl's because an editor of 8 years should know your policy on sourcing. – Soham (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You call other users valid links unreliable but your links comes from sources which are unknown and can't be trusted--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: There doesn't seem to be a consensus to include the suggested content at this time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 March 2014

Please change the current info in the section Total Siyapaa#Box office Reception.

Total Siyapaa got low opening and received poor Box Office reception in India due to negative reviews from critics But overseas business were better .

References

ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please leave some time for others to comment before using the {{edit protected}} template. If there is a consensus to make this change after a few days, please reactivate this request. (And also, you shouldn't put spaces before footnotes - see WP:REFPUNC.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Right now only one week has passed after the movie's release. So this section should be edited after two weeks --Whistlingwoods (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

references that need to be added to the critical reception section

Please add these references to the section Total Siyapaa#Critical Reception.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/total-siyappa-movie-review-yami-gautam-ali-zafar/1/347282.html

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/entertainment/bollywood/Film-review-Total-Siyappa/articleshow/31629541.cms

http://www.india.com/showbiz/total-siyapaa-movie-review-not-funny-not-romantic-not-worth-a-watch-20355/

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/total-siyapaa-review-it-is-a-premise-ripe-with-comic-potential/456516-47-84.html

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-film-review-total-siyapaa-is-a-wasted-opportunity-1967663

http://www.villagevoice.com/2014-03-12/film/total-siyapaa/

http://www.koimoi.com/box-office/total-siyapaa-continues-to-perform-poor-1st-tuesday-box-office-collections/

http://www.koimoi.com/reviews/total-siyapaa-review/

http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/review-total-siyapaa-total-faux-pas-is-more-like-it/20140307.htm

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/total_siyapaa_2014/

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/moviemicro/criticreview/id/568655

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140308/jsp/t2/story_18057035.jsp#.UyQZifmkHsw

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/21356/total-siyapaa-despite-a-pakistani-groom-and-an-indian-bride-the-movie-could-have-been-better/

http://www.thenewstribe.com/2014/03/07/ali-zafars-total-siyapaa-fails-to-impress-indian-media-gets-negative-reviews/

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/13-Mar-2014/total-siyapaa-opens-to-mixed-reviews-moviegoers-treated-to-taj-cinema-s-revival

http://www.dawn.com/news/1093731/movie-review-total-siyapaa--

Some user might want to remove this section, But remember no matter how many socks you use Administrators will be watching--Whistlingwoods (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Abuse by Socks.

This page has been the target of socks of LanguageXpert – MusicPoineer, Xcrescent9, Morexbine, Archtexlic and Ibnebatutaji. They attempted to suppress negative reviews, BO collections and were even successful in doing so. Their disruption has left the page in tatters and some Good-faithed editors like Vvarkey, ZORDANLIGHTER and Whistlingwoods harassed. – Soham (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, so it's important to respond to their actions correctly and not get yourself blocked DP 08:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive#14_March_2014--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Apology needed from Administrators for trusting socks of LanguageXpert

I want all administrators(DP ,ES&L, Greedo8 ,Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪},C.Fred) to apologize to me for not trusting my reliable sources and giving unnecessary and pointless importance to the the socks created by one user.Huon (talk)'Is one and only good faith Administrator.If users make mistakes then they are punished but when Administrators make mistake then they should also repent. All those users who were constantly arguing with me are actually one person and these accounts are blocked by wikipedia. The hero of this movie is a Pakistani and LanguageXpert is a pakistani so he is unable to tolerate negative reviews and low box office reception in India. One thing is certain any new account which will favour the movie is a sock of LanguageXpert (talk).Ibnebatutaji (talk),Xcrescent9 (talk),Archtexlic (talk),ArjunPatel89 (talk) and TakenUrs are one person-something administrators never understood, now you powerful administrators check this user account page and you will find them blocked byWikipedia .--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)]

There's no apology needed from me: you were TOLD to stop removing text from this talkpage because it was against policy, yet you continued to do it. I'm sorry you felt you were somehow above the rules, and that you forced me to block you. ES&L 11:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no regret that I removed his text. as he was a sock and i was aware of that. I was frustrated that this LanguageXpert is using socks like Xcrescent9 to avoid the truth. At that time I didn't know how to report a sock. Which I learned yesterday and reported them as sock and I will track this LanguageXpert wherever he exists. I can smell him through his comments. I removed his worthless comments in good faithZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"If users make mistakes then they are punished..." A block is never used as a punishment. See WP:Blocking. Greedo8 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I've never issued a punishment block before, and I certainly did not this time. ES&L 16:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You made no such assertion of sockpuppetry in your edit summary. My one revert here was in response to this edit you made with the edit summary "XCRESCENT has accepted in hid previous edits that he was wrong about his objections . So I believe his discussions will create confusion for administrators. I am removing All discussions related to his irrelevant objections". Discussions may be archived but should not be deleted; that's why I restored about 3k of text.

My other recent edits have been technical edits, adding {{reflist-talk}} templates to better display the references included in comments. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This link is for good faith administrators even though the section was removed but it can be viewed in revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Whistlingwoods&oldid=600252820#You_respond_too_slowlyWhistlingwoods (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Legacy of master sock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive#03_November_2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistlingwoods (talk • contribs) 09:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox budget figures discussion

Hey everyone. Since it seems like some sort of edit war is imminent, I started a topic on the budget figures to discuss and come to a consensus on what the figures should be. It seems to me that at least one of the sources supports 8 crore as the budget figures. If you want to remove these sourced figures, you should have a good reason for doing so. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 15:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I 100% agree with FenixFeather. 39.32.206.224 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP is a probable sock of LanguageXpert, who has been all over this article like a rash with multiple socks. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Darkness ! I can not make what you wana suggest, you read dissuasion please and see history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Total_Siyapaa&action=history 39.32.206.224 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• FenixFeather This IP that is a sock of LanguageXpert and has been trying to promote this film, as you may have already gathered from the above discussions. I have added a source for the budget of the film and its better to leave its collection till we have a reliable source to support it. Also pinging Soham who edits in this topic area and can possibly review the matter. -- SMS ^Talk 17:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Darkness Shines explained to me. I think the source you found is pretty good. The infobox seems okay now. Thanks! – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No i do not agree because 99% of references available on inter net say 80 Million Indian Rs (8 Crore) budget. I mean 13 sources added by me + 115 other sources which I never added please see.https://www.google.com.pk/search?q=Total+siyapaa+budget+8+crore&newwindow=1&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:y&sa=X&ei=jTgyU8KLHOWw0AWMroDQBA&ved=0CBoQpwUoBQ&biw=1366&bih=653. Some one also removed completely referenced 10 days box office world wide gross of 102 Million (10.2 Crore). I think no one is ready to listen and want to do what they want. Should i leave to put my effort to find so many references still rejected and bitten like this? 39.32.206.224 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. -- SMS ^Talk 10:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

LanguageXpert Why don't you just give up.Ali Zafar's next release is Kill Dil.Promote that movie. And another Pakistani Imran Abbas Naqvi is making bollywood debut in Creature 3D apart from Fawad Khan in Khoobsurat remake. So you will have a busy schedule ahead.But even though you are suppressing negative reviews I don't know why you changed the name of the characters as kuta kuti instead of Aman and Asha. Is this how you show respect to your artists. Even if I am not Ali Zafar's fan I never used such language. Check link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Total_Siyapaa&oldid=600842666 ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

wrong sara khan

this is linked to the wrong sara khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanulakhwani (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

For all I can tell this isn't linked to any Sara Khan, right or wrong. Huon (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

plot

Plot is written by some vandal.It has no relation to the movie.[1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Championkiller (talk • contribs) 03:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

this movie follows the same plot as the spanish movie "only human" or "seres queridos"

should there be some reference?

I've added a line to the "plot" section. Huon (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Total Siyapaa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131203054059/http://www.boxofficecapsule.com/news-specific.aspx%3Fnews_id%3D4837 to http://www.boxofficecapsule.com/news-specific.aspx%3Fnews_id%3D4837

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)