MyBleedingHeart

Welcome!

Hello, MyBleedingHeart! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Linguisttalk|contribs 11:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

MyBleedingHeart, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MyBleedingHeart! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

Hi there, re: this, your massive chopping of the critical response section at Shivaay doesn't appear constructive to me. I can't think of a valid reason why you'd remove the bulk of 1 and 2 star reviews in favor of a short paragraph full of 3-star reviews. This sort of thing tends to look like you're trying to hide the actual criticism of the film, which would not be a legitimate practice at Wikipedia. Per WP:NPOV, we should be presenting all significant viewpoints. Maybe you've never seen a fully-fleshed out critical response section? There's one at Mad Max: Fury Road#Critical reception. Or at Prometheus (2012 film)#Critical reception. You will note that these both contain more than four cherrypicked reviews. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Shivaay, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Diff: [1] Since you did not provide a clear explanation in your edit summary, preferring instead to comment on some bizarre test you were running, it is unclear why you removed the Hindu and Firstpost reviews from the article. I have restored them here. Please don't add {{rating}} templates to references, that is not a standard practice among film articles, and if you wish to include it at Shivaay, you will need to seek a local consensus. If you have anything you wish to discuss with me, the place to do that is either on your talk page, or on my talk page. Your commentary in your edit summary was cut off, so I have no idea what important points you were trying to make. Oh, also, please don't use articles to test other editors responses. This is disruptive. Please see WP:POINT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you ignorant? I didn't remove anything. I just added what was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyBleedingHeart (talk • contribs)

Apparently I must be ignorant, but I could swear that in this edit of yours, content attributed to The Hindu and Firstpost appears on the left, but it's missing after you made your changes on the right. So unless I'm totally missing something, yes, you removed something. It's definitely not the end of the world, but in the wake of your silent deletion of all those 1 and 2 star reviews, maybe you can understand why further silent deletions would be a little off-putting, and why it might be helpful to explain your changes with clear edit summaries. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A few things

Hi there, re: these edits, a few general notes.

1. The |language= parameter is for the original language of production, not for dubs. If dubs are noteworthy, and they are not always noteworthy, they might be detailed in a more intuitive spot in the article, like maybe in the production section or something.
2. The WikiProject Film community is not interested in mundane marketing techniques like first look poster releases, trailers, actors appearing on TV shows to promote the film, etc. These are all normal aspects of marketing and are not noteworthy. Please see WP:TRAILER for guidance on what sorts of marketing coverage is appropriate. I don't see why we'd ever care what celebrities think, as celebrities are typically expected to gush publicly over their colleagues.

If editing film articles is something you are interested in, you would benefit from familiarising yourself with Template:Infobox film, which represents community expectations for how film infoboxes should be filled out, as well as our Manual of Style for film. Both links represent widespread community expectations and editors should be building articles with these documents in mind. Deviations require local consensus, meaning that if you wish to veer from the Manual of Style, you would need to discuss those specific differences on an article's talk page and achieve a general agreement with other editors based on strength of arguments, not votes. You should also be aware that we write from a neutral point of view, so adding our own personal commentary or analyses to articles is widely disallowed. Thanks for understanding, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, but I haven't added my personal opinion. It was the sources which cited the film had an above average opening and that reviews were mixed. I liked the film personally but I wasn't playing with facts. If you haven't seen any sources, better refrain from making such pointless edits. And your statements...we don't care...hardly make a sense. Why doesn't Wikipedia care? It should.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MyBleedingHeart (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your response. I don't see the source that indicates the film had an "above average" opening. Was it supposed to be this? You put the claim in italics, so I can't tell if you were trying to quote a source or what, but I don't see the quote in that source. And even if there was a source that said that, "above average" is still vague unless readers are provided with sufficient context to understand what the scope of the claim is. Are we talking about any film? Any Indian film? Any Indian Tamil-language film? You indicated that it was "above average" and "topped the Chennai box office", which suggests two separate achievements. Are there two separate achievements or just one? Do we need to know high numbers for an opening? Low numbers for an opening? Also, "topped the Chennai box office" is lifted right out of the article. As for why Wikipedia doesn't care what celebrities think, you should probably read WP:UNDUE and also WP:PUFFERY. When we present a fringe opinion as though it is representative of the entirety of opinion, that's problematic. And even from a basic argumentation standpoint, citing what celebrities think (not "celebs" in an encyclopedia, btw) would constitute an appeal to authority logical fallacy--i.e., just because someone famous expresses an opinion doesn't mean their opinion bears any special weight, and celebrities in particular just aren't independent and unbiased enough to be used for their general opinions on films, especially without context. You should consider asking other editors at WT:FILM what they think on the matter, because it may be eye-opening. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

OK Mr Cyphoidbomb, I need your views on one matter. Why is this a rule of Wikipedia to disclose everything a whodunit film has? Or for any film. Can't we just have a synopsis? After all, this reveals rather too much. A synopsis won't reveal much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyBleedingHeart (talk • contribs)

Not sure if I understand the question. A synopsis, generally speaking, can be any length so long as it's much shorter than the original work. It can also contain as much information as required so that a casual reader can understand the general shape of the work, from beginning to end. The relevant content guidelines for films are at WP:FILMPLOT and the relevant guideline for TV shows and episodes are at WP:TVPLOT. We typically limit film summaries to 700 words max.The broader issue seems to be about whether or not we exclude spoilers. We do not. See WP:SPOILER. Some details are just not worth including in a synopsis because they might not materially improve our understanding of the story, but crucial details should be included. You have to remember that film students might need quick access to a film's plot and relevant twists to understand the work. Hope that helps. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. This will append your name and timestamp so that others will know who commented and when. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for responding. Just check out the page Dhuruvangal Pathinaaru and let me know if you feel this excellent whodunit film deserves to have each and every twist revealed. What I meant was only in case of such mystery films. Sure these can help film students but can't they watch it? Afterall, a film is meant to be seen and not be read, isn't it?

MyBleedingHeart (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The section is about 2x longer than it needs to be and I have flagged it accordingly for cleanup. So yes, some of the twists and turns could probably be removed. What is important is that readers have a clear idea of the shape of the story, and that would very well include big reveals as well as the ending. There has been tons of discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, with energetic opinions on both side of the fence, some users not wanting their enjoyment to be spoiled, and other users feeling that an encyclopedia should provide crucial information, not censor it. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Pressks.com

Hi there, re: this, I've removed pressks.com from the list of reviews because it looks like a random blog to me, not an established authority on films. We only care what reliable mainstream sources think. It was also unclear why we pushed a 4.5/5 star review to the top of the list. That just tends to look like we're hiding bad reviews at the bottom. In an ideal world the critical response section would be a mix of reviews organised in some coherent way, for instance by focusing on elements of the film like writing, direction, cinematography and then presenting a balance of reviews like:

The film's cinematography received attention from critics, several of whom praised the wide sweeping shots used throughout the dance sequences. "Brilliant," said John Doe of ABC Times, who gave the film 3 stars out of 5. "I felt as though I was flying." Rory Sen of DEF Bugle wrote, "I was transported to the crisp verdant hills of Switzerland. The techniques used by Salman Croix were astounding." These sentiments were not felt by Roy Smythe of DEF Times who described the photography as "dizzying ... I thought I was going to throw up. However, the acting was spot on and I found Mamta Bloggs to be believable and adorable." Bloggs' portrayal of the street urchin was described as "hilarious and lovable. I wanted to adopt her. Bloggs had amazing chemistry with Hrithik Jones, who did an excellent job of eliciting tears as the kind-hearted businessman."

Obviously I'm not asking you to make those changes, only pointing out the problems inherent to stacking positive reviews at the top of a critical response section, which can disproportionately suggest that the film was generally considered good, when that may not be accurate. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Babumoshai Bandookbaaz, you may be blocked from editing. DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE. ITS NOT ACTION THRILLER UNLESS A CONSENSUS IS FORMED! SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey idiot, I did nothing disruptive. You people think only you're right? I have added the genres again, this time with VALID source. AND YES, MY EDIT WASN'T DISRUPTIVE. "You'll be blocked from editing..." Rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyBleedingHeart (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Babumoshai Bandookbaaz. SORRY I HAVE TO REPORT YOU SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

You useless guys are just gonna frame me. And I knew, that you would yourself have no concensus over whether it's a crime drama. You added it. You yourself follow no rules and threaten to block me. That's all pointless. My last edit on the genre was also from a notable news source "The Times of India." But why would you be concerned? In your opinion, "concensus" is only what you believe and if someone opposes it, frame him/her. AWESOME. MINDBLOWING. WIKIPEDIA will progress only due to people like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyBleedingHeart (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Akshay Kumar. - Arjayay (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MyBleedingHeart. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Critical response summaries, mixed-to-negative, genre

Critical response summaries

Hi there, MyBleedingHeart, I've noticed that you've attempted to summarise critical response without actually providing references to support your summaries. We can't do that. Summaries of how critics felt must come directly from reliable sources, not from our brains or our interpretations of how critics felt. At Raakh you described the critical response as mixed, but the reference you used says nothing about the film's overall critical response. Here you attempted to summarise the critical response of Bhaagamathie, but it looks to me like you cherrypicked positive reviews, then summarised that cherrypicked selection as positive. That's completely inappropriate because it's a sure-fire way to introduce personal bias, whether deliberate or not, and it certainly looks promotional. This is why we leave the summaries to the professionals. Even edits like this, where you stuffed a 4 star review at the top of a pile of negative reviews comes across as promotional as well, particularly when Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 20% approval rating, and since I've seen you do this before.

Mixed to negative

Additionally, while I do notice that you removed it from this version of Raakh, "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" and other permutations of that phrasing are considered meaningless by multiple WikiProjects including WikiProject Film. Feel free to review the myriad discussions if you're interested, but the general perspective is that "mixed" means "positive and negative", so "mixed to negative" would mean "positive and negative to negative", which is meaningless.

Genre salad

Lastly, I'd be very careful about genres as well, like here. Per MOS:FILM (our bible for how film articles should be presented), the community wants "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". The community does not want chained-together "genre salads" like "Action comedy romance thriller buddy black comedy coming-of-age horror". Pick one. Maaaybe two if exceptionally warranted by sources. The guideline also says, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." If one site describes a film as an action-thriller, but another as an action-horror, and a third as romantic action, then maybe the smart thing is to pick the nexus of all three, in this case, action, rather than mashing them all together. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amazon Obhijaan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assamese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aiyaary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Action (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Doctor (2013 film)

Hi, I'm AmericanAir88. MyBleedingHeart, thanks for creating Doctor (2013 film)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Paraphrase as much as possible.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Parmanu: The Story of Pokhran

Hi, thank you for this edit of yours. Koimoi is not considered a reliable source according to WP:ICTFFAQ, so I am not sure whether it should be included. I don't know how the original paragraph was not neutral and missed the Encyclopediac tone! Positive reviews don't mean we have to write only positive, right? What do you think?? Also, it now looks more like a WP:QUOTEFARM. So, can you please do the necessary copyediting? Thanks again! Vivek Ray (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taegukgi (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wartime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pantham

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 Pantham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcoTJ32IOjQ. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Action spy"

The Mission: Impossible series has always been classified in the spy genre since its storyline centers on espionage, like the James Bond films. Unlike most martial arts films, the action scenes are not really the whole point of the series (See this article). Sure, the Bond films have action set pieces, but their storylines have always centered on Bond's undertakings with the Mi-6. In MI, Ethan Hunt's mission is handed to him by the IMF, a spy organization. The point is the narrative of those films are grounded in espionage, not action. Ergo, the "action spy" is incorrect and redundant, considering "spy film" is one of the subgenres of an action film. I'm about to correct those genres on each of the Mission: Impossible articles. While I do so, I advice to refrain from edit warring as you did on the Mission: Impossible – Fallout article or I will have you reported for disruptive editing. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Do whatever you want and turn Wikipedia into a blog. Turning a blind eye to the action aspects of a film is nothing new for people like you. Spy film is a subgenre while action is a main genre. MI movies are action films with spy backdrop, not spy films with action backdrop. And what's with the focus thing? Action is something which always happens after a setup leads to it. It's not something which keeps happening consecutively unlike thrills and dramas. Don't tell me about the genres, I know a lot about them. I've been studying them since long. And oh. I missed something! Many spy films aren't even action films! So learn to understand the genre.

Only if you have read about spy thriller genre on Wikipedia, it even states not all films of this subgenre are action films and instead mostly thrillers. So there IS a difference and unless you mark that, all your showoff means nothing.

OK, so would leaving it just simply an "action film" be a suitable compromise? You're right that the action has been the major component in the series. I think we can ditch the "spy" part. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's better to call it action thriller or simply action film.

Action film it is, then. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

OK.

July 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Raid 2. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your edits on this article is incorrect and have been reverted. I advice you to stop trailing my edits per WP:HOUND. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's you who is wrong totally. You're completely mad, not slightly. Where were you all these years when it when it released? Suddenly A Dark Knight rose? Tampering with genres is not right. You've done that. Director's opinion cannot change the facts. He has said it's not a martial arts film but he didn't say it's not an action film. And well, he said gangster crime film. Then why the hell don't you call gangster crime film instead? No you'll not. And I'm not after you. I've seen the film and I'm fully aware what genre it comes under. Don't ever speak in front of anyone who has seen this movie, that it's not an action film because that would be the silliest thing ever. Guess you have not seen the film. It was just that I randomly decided to browse more on the film and then as I found the genre changed, I felt like who the hell on earth would make this idiotic mistake. Well, I got the answer.

And don't you dare call it disruptive.

And do you have the guts to change the genre for Dunkirk's wikipedia page?

Mr Nolan says it's not a war film. He's correct. But it's mentioned as one. Why the hell are you targeting action movies selectively?

When I see someone do that, I lose my cool.

If you're not partial towards action movies, then proceed and make changes to the page of Dunkirk movie and change the genre from war to action thriller because that's how it has been described.

Will you do that? No. You don't have the guts to that. All you can do is bring out commentaries as a source and post trashy threats on my talk page.

You ought to tweak your reading comprehension a little bit. Although the director has said that the movie is a "gangster crime film", adding that in the article would be redundant considering gangster film is a subgenre of crime film. The whole point of this sequel is not the martial-arts action (unlike The Raid, which has no plot whatsoever) but its storyline concerning a feud between crime syndicates, which is why he calls it primarily a crime film. A crime film may incorporate action set pieces without being necessarily a full-on action film. Have you even seen Reservoir Dogs? That masterpiece has some gunfight sequences. But is it an action film? Nah. And what's up with challenging me to change the genre in the Dunkirk article? If you have a problem with it, may I suggest that you just discuss that in that article's talk page. I'm just focusing on articles that are in my watchlist. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, now I got it. You are clearly manipulating Wikipedia according to your watchlist. Also, I don't think you have any understanding of the action genre. There is no fixed storyline for such movies, while crime movies are clearly about gangsters, criminals, serial killers. The definition of action itself says that it may have crime and mystery elements, but those aspects take a backseat to action. Anyways, is The Raid 2 known as a crime drama? Or for its crime story? Absolutely not. It's known worldwide for its action. And what on earth do you think when say that even after having action, certain films don't fall in the genre? It's going to happen only if the film has just one action scene or too small action bits. The Raid 2 is nonstop action film, and crime aspects are merely to connect the action. It's not a crime film with action elements but action film with crime elements.

Read more here:

https://www.indiewire.com/2014/03/review-the-raid-2-is-one-of-the-great-action-films-of-recent-memory-28712/ https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/03/why-arent-more-action-movies-as-awesome-as-the-raid-2-berandal

Also, keep in mind that crime films are more focused on character development and action takes a backseat to the drama. It doesn't happen here in The Raid 2 in which action clearly dominates most of the duration. And for Reservoir Dogs, I haven't seen it yet.

What's funny is that Wikipedia itself mentions that some action films might be considered crime films because of just criminality, the main genre of focus is drama in crime films.

Oh, and do you know why I brought Dunkirk in between?

Go to this section and may be this shows you the mirror to reality. There were genre conflicts here too keeping the director's statement in mind, but mostly it was believed that a director's opinion is not definitive. Same for Gareth Evans. Tell me, did he say it's not an action film? He only refused martial arts, not action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunkirk_(2017_film)#Genre_in_opening_sentence

Remember, a director is not the final authority on this, being a primary source; secondary sources have greater authority. Even the film's official FB page says action. https://www.facebook.com/pg/TheRaidUS/about/?ref=page_internal

I'm not disputing how prominent this movie is about its action scenes. But again, the director has stated perfectly clear that his own movie (his work) is a crime film with a gangster plot and martial-arts action. It don't matter what the majority of the sources say that it's an action movie. The director says it's a crime film, then we stick with it. Ffs, is this really difficult for you to understand? I'd like to add that there's nothing wrong with using primary sources as long the article in question does not rely heavily on it. In truth, Wikipedia requires a balance coverage between primary and secondary sources, but they don't necessarily prohibit primary sources. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You're being too subjective. Have you seen the film? I guess you have. Remember, crime films are drama oriented and not action oriented. Because if it is, then it would automatically become action crime film. There's been a South Korean crime drama called Lady Vengeance. Honestly, that film too has some action involving gunshots and beating, but it's just too less than you can't put it in action genre. I won't argue in case of such films. Action is not just an element anymore, it's a genre. It's an element only if it used very less. And you didn't answer my question. DID HE REFUSE TO CALL IT AN ACTION FILM? Looks like you don't wanna see the truth but only what you like to see.

Wikipedia is full of people like you. Honestly even I agree The Raid 2 isn't a martial arts movie as characters are never shown to have any such origin or training and use martial art moves only when they fight. This film doesn't even feature a Ninja master or Samurai or any such things. There is just action in martial arts form. But martial arts is subgenre of action. Gareth only refused the subgenre, not the main genre. And the crime story is just the backstory for action. I don't know why I am saying this to a reluctant guy like you.

And yes, this is just one source. What do majority of sources say? Now don't say all that trash that primary source can be and all that. Tell me, what do major, rather all publications say about this movie? Ironically, the same website which has your "source" mentions it as:

"There is a scene midway through Gareth Evans' action-crime thriller "The Raid 2" that exemplifies the excruciating and exhilarating experience of this gripping paean to the ballet, brutality and blood that courses through martial arts films." and so on.

Now tell me, just director's statement is not enough. Are you still hell-bent on sticking to what satisfies you and not Wikipedia? That's so mean. And yes, thanks a lot for using expletive "Ffs". I know what it means.

He neither refused nor he called the film an action movie. He only described the action as martial-arts, but that does not mean he calls it primarily an action film. You know what, I really don't want keep repeating myself all over again. It's really frustrating that you really have a short attention span to even keep up with this discussion. All I can read from you is constant rambling and incoherent, juxtaposed input. I'm done here. Stop trailing my edits and attempt to edit-war on any articles, or I will be forced to report you for unconstructive editing and stalking me. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for this.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Why would I stalk you? It's just a coincidence that I saw the edit and it was you. I would have said the same thing even if it had been someone else. Don't worry, you won't get away with this. One day, this will change. Keep destroying Wikipedia. I'll not do anything to your edits from now on. But if I ever do that without knowing your presence or with a proper source, then don't you dare say a word on my talk page. It was futile talking to you. You aren't a person worth stalking but keeping an eye on for sure, as no one knows what on earth you can do. Good luck for spoiling Wikipedia, as this page might get further edited by the fans of the film and there would be way too many to stop. That doesn't mean I'll stalk you. I hate stalking.

I'm sorry for no reason. You aren't worth stalking. I never even used an expletive but you did. Great job, Wikipedia deserves you.

Try to forget it, while I will search for the director's real statement on this.

Thank you, now I'm under house arrest: i.e, I can only edit my talk page. I was doing the right thing but now I'm caged. Thanks a lot for this. My account might never be unblocked and my contributions will never be noticed.

I really thank you from the bottom of my heart for this punishment. You made the mistake, I tried to correct it but who got stabbed in the end? Me.

Thank you once again.

It's (not yet) over. Good luck! (MyBleedingHeart (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC))

The Raid 2

Please watch the edit warring on The Raid 2. Discuss genres changes on the talk page instead of reverting, please. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Tell this to that slightly mad user who did it first. He too removed the genre without any discussion.

Based on the history at The Raid 2 and this analysis, it looks like you're logging out to continue edit wars. Everyone accidentally edits while logged out occasionally, and there is no rule against editing while logged out; however, you seem to have made a habit of reverting people while logged out. Please be aware that this is in violation of our policy on sock puppetry, especially when you do this after having been warned previously about edit warring under one account. Continuing the same disruptive behavior with a different account is a blockable issue by itself. I hope this warning will suffice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And who do you think you are? How come have you been tracking me? I want confirmation that your account is not a second account of Slightlymad user.

NinjaRobotPirate is a Checkuser - a trusted administrator that has access to advanced technical details/logs. SQL^{Query me!} 05:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

True enough, but I didn't check any logs for this. I just want that to be clear so that nobody makes any assumptions. Slightlymad pointed out the edits by the IP address, but I probably would have seen them eventually anyway; The Raid 2 is on my watchlist. I think I reverted vandalism there a while ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

- TNT ^💖 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, given above conversations, CheckUser evidence has shown you have been abusing multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny when edit warring over film genres - TNT ^💖 15:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a lie. I haven't used multiple accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyBleedingHeart (talk • contribs)

Yes, you have. - TNT ^💖 15:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. All I intended was to keep Wikipedia true to facts. All I got in the end is a block. Long live Wikipedia and its legendary blockers, vandals, editors. I lost my faith in Wikipedia. I used the other IP address only to correct the genre for The Raid 2 because the editor was manipulating it on will and not trying to understand. Other than that, you may believe it or not, my roommate too has access to my devices. He likes to improve the pages I edit.

The real person who deserves punishment is that user called Slightly mad. He deserves at least to be checked. But I guess that will never happen.

Before I end this, I would like to say one thing:

THUMBS DOWN YOU ALL!MyBleedingHeart (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your explanation of DestructionAhead is "my roommate too has access to my devices"? - TNT ^💖 18:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about this account. This is true that my roommate has access to my devices and he does edit my edited articles as longer as I allow it. Now if some account pops out of nowhere, you'll try to frame me but not pay a heed to what I said. I have never vandalised in my life.

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I deserve a chance

Decline reason:

Even ignoring the other account and admitted IP socking, your rant below shows that a collaborative project such as Wikipedia is likely not a good fit for you. As such, I’m declining this unblock request. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Editors,

I agree I used another IP address to make edits but most of my edits are constructive in nature and I've never vandalized Wikipedia in my whole life. I'll never do that. But I guess there's rarely a thing called chance because in my case a random editor claiming to be a master by his edits constantly challenged me and the facts, and did exactly what a sane editor won't really do. And guess what? Just because I explained him everything in detail, he got me reported. He constantly threatened me to get reported only because I was not letting him turn Wikipedia into a blog. I knew it could get me blocked, but I still stood against him, only because I was 110% sure I was right.

And if it's about my using a different IP address, then let me speak out no one is clean on Wikipedia. Another person left a message on my talk page regarding the "vandalism" I did. Come on, first of all I didn't vandalize and secondly when I asked him to question that editor manipulating that page, I'm sure he won't have asked him to check the credibility of his source. Just one source is never considered enough to prove a main point, right? That page had that thing unchanged since years but suddenly one person shows up to vandalize it as per his will only because that thing is in his watchlist. And so is it the watchlist of the person who cross-questions me.

Wikipedia is for everyone, right? I know vandals should be banned. But if you go through my activity log, do you see any vandalism? No. I never vandalized. It was mostly when I didn't have any access to this ID that I used a different IP address.

But I don't know why I just got blocked. Only because I did something incorrect to do something right?

The answer is YES.

Say whatever you want to, do whatever you want to. Years pass by and honest, blocked editors never get the ban revoked, only because they raised their voice against arrogant editors.

The truth won't change. I didn't vandalize. I didn't tamper with anything. That editor just completely went on my nerves for nothing. I had more sources than him to prove I was right and all those sources were above his. But still he got away with this and I'm left caged.

I want you to understand that I'm not a vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyBleedingHeart (talk • contribs)

You can start by explaining this account - TNT ^💖 18:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I have already explained it. I don't know about this account. BTW, can you spend some time reading and trying to understand what I said? Because I've heard that "editors" like you rarely give others a chance. You think you're the rulers? Please try to understand. I used a different IP address as previously said, and that was only due to the circumstances. Can't you understand? And fine, if you still don't get convinced and never unblock my account, what am I supposed to do? I just can't sit silently while someone manipulates Wikipedia. That way, I'm being deprived of my right to use it while users like Slightly mad are successfully getting away with this. This is unfair and unjust.

Also, what I forgot to mention is that the user even used an expletive in his conversation while I didn't. Even then...he'll sail safe? MyBleedingHeart (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC))

I'll respond to both this comment, and the one above - no point splitting the conversation any further.

• I have already explained it. I don't know about this account.

I personally checked your account and found that DestructionAhead is  Confirmed to yours. Additionally, behaviourally, it made edits almost identical to yours. I'd really rather you just admit to it, and then we can start working towards an unblock.

• This is true that my roommate has access to my devices and he does edit my edited articles as longer as I allow it.

Do they also have access to your account then?

• I've heard that "editors" like you rarely give others a chance. You think you're the rulers?

Editors like me? I don't think that's really called for - I'm only trying to protect the content that editors much more talented than I create.

As for being deprived of my right to use it, no one has the right to edit Wikipedia - its a privilege which can be revoked for abuse. Please drop the pretence in regards to DestructionAhead, and then we can talk.

As this is a CheckUser block, you will need to appeal by following these instructions - TNT ^💖 21:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

If admitting something I didn't do will unblock my account, then it is gracefully rejected.

But please run a check on Slightly mad. He's vandalizing for sure.

Another request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Give me another chance

Decline reason:

These are not the instructions given. Talkpage access revoked. SQL^{Query me!} 21:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Oh no, come on! Don't I have the right to be angry if I get wronged even on trying to just fix everything? Please give me a chance! You can't turn a blind eye to my contributions. I've always tried to solve conflicts peacefully. I don't deserve this! Please!

Listen to me please! Don't do this. At least answer my question: what am I supposed to do if I see somebody vandalise Wikipedia? I'm left with nothing! Please.

And if saw just rant and didn't understand the depth of what I said, then it's just too unfortunate.

I request you one last time. I guess I can be unblocked because you saw only my rant and not my contributions as the reason to decline my block. It's like declining the parole of a person who's in for almost nothing serious.

Try to understand. Please. (MyBleedingHeart (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Saharanpur

The article Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Saharanpur has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)