Hemunarine

Welcome!

Hello, Hemunarine, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ravi varma(stunt director), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ueutyi (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ravi varma(stunt director)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Ravi varma(stunt director) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ueutyi (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ravi varma(stunt director)

Hello Hemunarine,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ravi varma(stunt director) for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ueutyi (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sathya haralepet

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sathya haralepet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.  GILO   A&E⇑ 12:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ravi Varma (stunt director)

The article Ravi Varma (stunt director) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. PamD 20:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of highest-grossing Indian films. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Diff: [1] In this edit, you completely removed Yejamana from the list and replaced it with Doddmane Hudga, added no new reference for the change, provided no explanation, and kept the Yejamana reference. You also inflated Kottigoba 2's gross figures without providing a new reference, then moved it up in the rankings with no clear justification. And, you added Shivalinga to the list, but used Cheluvina Chittara's reference. This is all indistinguishable from vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at List of highest-grossing Indian films. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. In these edits you made a few questionable decisions:

1. You completely removed Yejamana from the list of highest-grossing Kannada films, even though the content is sourced. I don't see a valid reason for doing this, since at worst the content should have been moved down one rank. This is indistinguishable from vandalism.
2. You used a blog, Chitraloka.com as a reference. We do not use blogs as references because anyone can start a blog and print whatever they want. User-generated content is insufficient for inclusion. See our guidelines on reliable sources.
3. Even if Chitraloka.com were a valid resource, they didn't say anything about Bhajarangi's gross, which leads me to believe you have fabricated the financial data. This is indistinguishable from vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with this change at List of highest-grossing Kannada films. The list you've submitted is inconsistent with the same table at List of highest-grossing Indian films. We can't have two tables with the same content that are inconsistent with one another. You are also again using a blog kannadamovie.in. I've explained to you that blogs are insufficent for use. It's also unclear again where Yejamana went. You need to discuss these changes, probably at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films since the result of that discussion would also affect that article. From the look of things, it appears you have your own idea for how the films should be ordered, as well as the gross values you think each film has made, and you are attempting to conform the table to fit that perspective, as opposed to conforming the table to what reliable sources say. That is a problem and it won't be tolerated. I advise you to discuss this list and not make any changes to either article until you have consensus for the changes. If you make these sorts of POV edits again, I will have to interrupt your editing privileges. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: this, you can't use Wikipedia as a reference. Please see WP:UGC. It is user-generated, like IMDb is, like discussion forums are, like blogs are, etc. Also, please be sure that whatever source you use is clear to say that Om is the third highest-grossing Kannada film. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre reordering at List of highest-grossing Indian films

This change doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Though I understanding moving Kirik Party (which has an estimated gross of 40 crore) under Yajamana (which has an estimated gross of 42 crore), I don't understand your choice to move it down three additional spots to the bottom of the list of films that all have 40 crore grosses. How did Kiri Party, with its 40 crore gross make less than Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna with its 40 crore gross? Or Uppi 2? In fact, one of the entries, Doddmane Hudga, has a range estimate of 35-40 crore, yet you moved Kirik Party under that for some inexplicable reason. That doesn't make sense to me. It's already a strange system, with three films with identical grosses being ranked differently, but your changes didn't exactly fix this issue. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hemunarine. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Odd_numbering.
Message added 17:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of highest-grossing Kannada films, you may be blocked from editing. Diff: [2] No new sources, no explanation, nothing in the existing sources supports these changes. Indistinguishable from vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at List of highest-grossing Kannada films

Re: these recent edits, you have silently restored content that was removed with a clear explanation, and that was also supplemented with an even clearer explanation at Talk:List of highest-grossing Kannada films. If you care about the content, then you need to participate in that discussion. The chief problem is that little to none of the content is properly supported by the references that were in the article. It is your burden to resolve that issue if you restore the content, which you did not do. Additionally, you inappropriately removed maintenance templates that exist to encourage other users to fix the verification problems. This is disruptive, because again it looks like you are trying to fabricate data and maintain that fabricated data as fact. If you restore this dubious content again without first acquiring a resolution through discussion, your editing privileges will be interrupted, as I will have to assume you are here to be disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I consider this reversion to be yet another waste of my time and attention, but since you apparently don't understand the problem, I'm going to go in it in detail:

1. Re: Raajakumara - "blastingnews" is not a valid reference because it's a blog. See WP:UGC. We don't care what blogs say, because anyone can start a blog and publish whatever they want. So your repeated restoration of this poor reference is not constructive. Even if we did care what blastingnews said, it says "Record breaking collections expected for the movie on the first day. As per the estimate, it can collect between Rs 6.5 to 7 crores gross." Do you understand the difference between a prediction, and a statement of confirmed fact? Placing Raajuakumara at the top of the list with a predicted gross, especially when the prediction was a range, demonstrates a lack of comprehension about the purpose of such a table. So, the data is both poorly sourced, and it's not even the correct data. Must be cut.
2. Hebbuli: Again sourced to blastingnews. Insufficient. Must be cut. Burden is yours to provide a sufficient reference, per WP:BURDEN.
3. Doddmane Hudga: You assert a first day gross of 6.2 crore. The source you used says "Dodmane Huduga was released in over 250 screens in Karnataka and made over Rs 5 crore on the first day although there are some reports of the flick making Rs 6 crore on its opening day." I see a report of a rumor, not a confirmation, and I don't see "6.2" anywhere in the article. Must be cut.
4. Masterpiece: The source you restored doesn't say anything about the first day gross. There is not one financial figure in that two paragraph article. Must be cut.
5. Kotigobba 2: You say it grossed 5.3 crore, but the source says 5. Where's the source that says 5.3? Inflated data.
6. Jaggu Dada: Moviebeats.in is not a valid source. Yet another faceless blog. Must be cut.
7. Killing Veerappan: You say 4.8, but the source you added says 4.5. Another inflation.
8. Chakravyuha: You say 4.5 crore, the source says 4.5 crore. Finally, a piece of data that actually matches a reliable source. But if all the other figures are fabricated or improperly supported, what value does it have in a table?
9. Uppi 2: You say 3.4, but the source says 3.25. Another inflation.
10. Ranna: Sourced to boxofficehits.in. Another poor reference. Must be cut.
11. You also seem to be missing the bigger picture: Not one of these sources says, "Kotigobba 2 was the fifth highest-grossing opening day for a Kannada film". How do you plan to address that issue? All content must be verifiable. If a reader wants to verify whether Kotigobba 2 is ranked #5, how would they do that? They would have to have access to every opening day figure for every Kannada movie. Thus, the ranks constitute original research and must be cut. And without the ranks, what remains? Four random films and their opening day grosses? Totally pointless to include.

I've invested a significant amount of time to explain this to you in detail, where you've participated in exactly zero discussions. What I expect in return is that you not restore this problematic content until you come up with a way to address each of the issues above, with the main focus on the last point about the rankings. If you restore the problematic content again, your editing privileges will be interrupted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Bro there is no proof for Rajakumara to have 60 crores if u want i have many links of those skrt saying hebbuli as highest grossers Moreover uf u observe it is fan made Suraj Sudeep (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hemunarine. You have new messages at Talk:List of highest-grossing Kannada films#Fabricated content with references pulled out of thin air.
Message added 17:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at List of highest-grossing Indian films

I'm not sure what your thought process was when you made this edit, but the source being used for Doddamane Huduga's gross presents the total in the form of a range of 35–40 crore rupees. Why you would unilaterally decide to ignore the lower number is beyond my comprehension, but it is not your place to do so, and it has the ring of POV editing, i.e. editing to conform facts to your personal perspective. This is intolerable. If this sort of sloppy editing continues, I will have no choice but to interrupt your editing privileges to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. I'd also start participating in discussions if I were you, since your general silence is going to very quickly be perceived as apathy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Last notice about sources

Hemunarine, I've taken great pains to explain to you above and even on my talk page why we don't allow random websites and blogs to be included as references. In this edit, you use another faceless blog, hindaily.com as a reference. Consider this your last notice on the matter--please do not submit any more poorly-sourced content. Stick to well-known, mainstream, established sources. If you don't know anything about a website or who's behind it, or if there's any clear editorial oversight, or if there are any bona fide journalists working there, then you should not use that reference. I'm a little irritated that you created List of highest-grossing Kannada films with completely bogus references, so the sense I'm getting is that you are deliberately adding poorly-sourced content, which is indicative of a promotional agenda. Stop. Next one will result in an interruption of your editing privileges. Find time to read WP:RS and WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism, as you did at List of highest-grossing Indian films. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

For this vandalism. I'm not sure where your anger is coming from, since you've been given ample opportunities to figure out what are and are not good sources. Note that indefinite does not mean forever, but it does mean for the foreseeable future. If you wish to edit again, you will need to convince a reviewing admin that you understand what was problematic about your edits, which would be the petulant vandalism, as well as the history of poor sourcing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)