Archives

Archive for 2009 Archive for 2010 Archive for 2011 Archive for 2012 Archive for 2013 Archive for 2014 Archive for 2015 Archive for 2016 Archive for 2017 Archive for 2018 Archive for 2019 Archive for 2020 Archive for 2021 Archive for 2022

I will generally respond on this page inside the section which has been added unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you leave me a message, and remember to sign your post with ~~~~. Thanks!

Welcome message!

Hello, Ravensfire! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 04:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ravensfire,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Bro, You changed News24 back to 'was' status even thought it is still on air. AK The WikiEditoror (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AK The WikiEditoror and you need to read WP:EVADE. You've been blocked how many times now? I don't deal with sockpuppets, just revert them. A good faith editor can make the changes. Ravensfire (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock. I haven't made any meaningless edits. I have only updated Disney Star channes page with list of Walt Disney Company's shutdown channels as their brands are merging. I have edited Categories of various articles based on channels because they are no longer on air and have been permanently shutdown. AK The WikiEditoror (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, also need to get those articles semi-protected to prevent further disruption from your next account(s). Cool, thanks for the warning on that. Sadly, folks here just aren't that dumb, no matter how much you want us to be. Lying doesn't help you at all in this case, it just demonstrates even more why you were blocked in the first place. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. You don't get to do your own thing and ignore everyone else. The Standard Offer is your only realistic chance at getting unblocked, but that's a minimum of six months of no editing and then convincing admins that despite the evidence, you can be a productive editor and not repeat the past mistakes. Ravensfire (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention sources are a good thing to, you know, show others that the edit is right. But fear not, I've asked for you to be blocked for sock puppetry. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also added citations to prove them. So there's no question about facts. B6S19J10 (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@B6S19J10, Presenting mythology as a facts using a clickbait source is not acceptable on Wikipedia. There's a good page on the types of sources that should be used on historical articles like this - WP:HISTRS. Clickbait articles that parrots obvious myths are not good sources. Even the tag at the top of the India Today article is patently false - "the first warrior to fight for his native land against foreign rulers". Really? No countries before 1540 invaded other countries? Please discuss this on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you should learn how to write in english because "as a facts" does not mean anything. Secondly, the title at the top of India Today is talking just about India. If you know enough english then you will be able to see that "the first warrior to fight for his native land against foreign rulers" means "the first warrior to fight for India against foreign rulers". Thirdly, if you know how to check whether a page or a site is true or fake then you will come to know that the site which I have entered in the citation is not a fake one. And if you don't know about India Today then you should check Wikipedia for the same. And lastly, Chetak is not a myth if you know enough about Indian history. Then why are you reverting that. Also, the same facts are mentioned on Jagran's website which does not say "the first warrior to fight for his native land against foreign rulers". So, nothing is myth. And you can check that Jagran is not a click bait on Jagran Prakashan. And its click bait; clickbait does not mean anything. Thank you. B6S19J10 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@B6S19J10 yes, it's pushing mythology using poor sources. Again, please bring this up on the article talk page and see if you can get consensus there.Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ravensfire I hope you're doing well. I have added a link of OTT Play for review section. Is it considered as reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES? Please a humble request if could you assist me in expanding the review section, as I'm not good in writing it in own word (also I'm cautious not to indulge in copyvio). Thanks, hope to get a positive response soon. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C1K98V this is for Dear Ishq, I think? The broader question of are reviews on OTTPlay a reliable source is in part an easy yes as some of them are pulled from Film Companion, Hindustan Times and a few other major sources. Reviews from those sites are clearly noted as coming from a partner. This one isn't from a partner, so does the reviewer meet MOS:TVRECEPTION (also see MOS:FILMCRITICS)? The reviewer, Shaheen Irani, has written a fair number of reviews both on OTTPlay and previously at Deccan Chronicle, so I would think they are a professional reviewer. There's some iffy phrasing/word choices that make me wonder a bit about the editorial oversight, but only a bit and honestly, that's more and more the norm.

There's some good advice in the TVRECEPTION on reviews that may be useful. With a new show, the advice about finding reviews for the season isn't possible, so ignore that. Reviews should be paraphrased as much as possible, with editors avoiding vague, non-descriptive claims about an episode. Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode. is relevant though. I like that you didn't quote from the review (summarize the entire review, don't pull out quotes!), but it's really short and doesn't give any context on why the reviewer criticized the episode. "In a review of the first episode, the show was sharply criticized for being cliched, lack of focus, and questionable camera shots. They felt it was more in line with a typical Hindi television show than a web series."

Hope that helps some. Ravensfire (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire yes its for Dear Ishq, I wasn't sure about the reliability of OTT play, but after cursory look found its being used in multiple article on wikipedia, so I did add the link. I read what Shaheen Irani wrote and found that s/he kind of criticize the series, for being predictable, repetitive etc. So I basically kept it short (in view as I'm confident in writing in own words and also don't want to do copyvio mistake any further). But I glad that you explained in detail from all perspectives. Thanks, stay safe C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 23:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I will keep what you said about the checkbox for minor edits in mind and add the sources to my changes even though it's already obvious that films' pages that I am making changes to obviously make sense because of the impact that those films have had on the Indian film industry NateLeeford (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NateLeeford, some of your changes are what's called original research, meaning it's your view about something. Wikipedia articles need to be based on information that readers can verify which is why the need for reliable sources is critical. If you have a good reliable source that discusses the impact, include that as a reference. If you don't, please don't add it as it's likely to be removed. Ravensfire (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I have cited some reliable sources like CNN, indian express, and south china morning post in my citations. Would those suffice? NateLeeford (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just wanted to make sure you know that the sources I cited are because of articles they wrote pertaining to the topic which I have specifically cited NateLeeford (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, but could you take a look at the following page and make sure that there is no unsourced puffery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangubai_Kathiawadi). Thank you for checking to make sure my edits were sourced and credible. NateLeeford (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bro, user Bommiran looks like a fan of Jothika. She/he is editing Simran's page and discrediting her works in her film articles and Simran page itself. Please review her contributions. It is a vandalism in my opinion. User talk:Bommi maaran 2023 Ason27 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked as a sockpuppet. Remember to assume good faith about editors until you know they aren't acting in good faith. Editors can disagree about the importance of someone and there are without question some aspects of Simran's page that are more fan-pov than they should be. You can disagree with someone's edits, but avoid commenting about the editor outside of venues like ANI or SPI. Ravensfire (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded Fighter (2024 film). Can you please help me to expand and fix typos and grammars. SuperSharanya (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a prolific LTA account. Ravensfire (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ravensfire. I saw your edit summary on this edit [3] to Indian 2, where you wrote "Per WP:ICTF consensus, INRConvert template should not be used in infobox, only in article body. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Crore about whether that consensus should be noted in the MOS guideline at MOS:CRORE that encourages use of {{INRConvert}}. If you have an opinion on that, I encourage you to add your voice. Thanks.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, thanks for the pointer to the discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had just erased this wrong information provided in Shahjahan (film) article "They have erected a puppet Taj Mahal with this Shahjahan as a succession of predictable scenes and weak incidents". "and reverted to old version Jhonsyrani (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've added unsourced material - that's not good. You also removed a quote from a reliable source with no basis given, that's not helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please answer Alsk 123 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsk 123, as I noted on the welcome message I left, your edits don't have a source and are written in POV langauge ("instantly became immensely popular"). Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, hype-driven trade site or forum. Professional, fact-based language supported by analysis done by WP:RS|independant reliable sources]] and citing those sources is what should be in Wikipedia articles. When you don't include those sources, readers can't verify the information which goes against a core pillar of Wikipedia, that readers can verify what's in articles. When including awards, only notable awards (meaning the award show has it's own Wikipedia article) should generally be included. There are a LOT of awards out there, we want to include only the significant ones in our articles. Ravensfire (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Awards were presented by the channel itself. What more do you want? And those Ratings are published and are highly authentic. Broadcast Audience Research Council of India publishes the TRP Ratings. It took a lot of time for me to gather the information. It is not fair enough to erase all my information. Is it? Alsk 123 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to hold everyone else to the normal standards and give someone free reign? Wikipedia has standards and guidelines on what content should be included in articles. The existing ratings table in the article has a source for the numbers. My suggestion would be to use information from those articles (and make sure to reference those sources!) and see what analysis those sources have done. Remember you need to rewrite the information completely in your own words, not copy-paste lines from the articles. Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm Alsk 123 replying from a different account of mine. Would you mind elaborating for me on how to re-write the information accurately? Also, Could you explain me in citing the sources? Balak123 5 (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, using multiple accounts on the same page is generally something to avoid. It makes it difficult for other readers to follow and can appear to add weight in discussions. Having multiple accounts is permitted, but the strong preference is for you to add notes to the user page of each account noting the alternate accounts (see WP:VALIDALT).

On your questions, I would suggest starting by reading some of the pages that have been linked on the messages on your talk page(s). There's a lot of good information there. You can also ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Ravensfire (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, May I have some details about you? I have noticed you many times reverting others edits for no reason at all. I'm new to Wikipedia. I would be glad enough to have some more detailed information about citing the official sources, POV tones and more. Would you mind giving me a detailed explaination on all these aspects? Balak123 5 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the information about me that I choose to reveal is what you'll find on my user talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did revert you again as your edits had the same issues - lack of sources and a POV tone. Ravensfire (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you please move Drafts article to published version? Vasantham Star 2023, Accidental Farmer and Co, Ilakkiya (TV series), Raju Vootla Party, Raju Vootla Party P.Karthik.95 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P.Karthik.95, Please be patient - remember that there is WP:NODEADLINE, we want to have quality articles. There's a limited number of reviewers. I'm not a reviewer, so I can't help with reviewing them. Just taking a quick look, in general I think they look fairly good.

• Draft:Vasantham Star 2023 - some capitalization issues (genre, some other places), would like to see some reviews of the series to really show notability, existing sources seem to be before the release.
• Draft:Accidental Farmer and Co - some capitalization issues (genre, some other places), would like to see some reviews of the series to really show notability, existing sources seem to be before the release.
• Draft:Ilakkiya (TV series) - some capitalization issues (genre, some other places), would like to see some reviews of the series to really show notability, existing sources seem to be before the release. Plot obvious copy-paste from Sun's website, that's a no-no right there. Several sources are questionable (searcharoundweb does not appear to be an actual reliable source, remember just because a site exists and shows up in Google does not mean it is reliable). Indiantvinfo is basically a database dump site, not a solid source. I didn't look at the remaining sources, but you should take a critical look at them. Ratings section generalizes from two datapoints. Multiple citation needed tags exist. The casting session needs to tightened some - shouldn't be mentioning other shows an actor as been in. Focus on the article subject, not name-dropping.
• Draft:Raju Vootla Party - LOTS of duplication in this article, clearly not ready for mainspace. Lead needs tightening. Filming location should be in a production, not lead. Lead is way too wordy in general. Sections needs to be re-ordered. The premise/plot should be before the background section. Cast should be right after premise/plot section. More sources needed in the background section. Airing section is too wordy. Character identification and image should be combined with cast. Episode overview/summary sections should be combined and gratuitous images removed. Adapted from section should be removed and mentioned in a production section.

I feel some work's needed on all of them to get a clean review. Ravensfire (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you mark a LOT of your edits as minor. Most of them are not actually minor edits. Edits like [4], [5], [6], [7] are NOT minor. Please read WP:MINOR and only use that checkbox when it is appropriate. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i understand--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think she's back..

I was reverting vandalism when I came across Cyb Bots and Boseshub98, users that make almost the exact same edits as Nalina. The same unsourced, no edit-summary edits, all of them being mobile and most of them to Indian films, I'm not entirely sure if it's her, what do you think? Dinoz1 (chat?) 12:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinoz1, Maybe. I'd like to think that Nalina would be better than making edits like this one. Cyb Bots doesn't feel like her, focused on just one article (so far) while Nalina bounced around a lot, usually expanding the plot section as part of their editing. Boseshub98 is more likely, but they've been editing since 2020, so I would have expected them to be spotted in the earlier checks. Their editing feels closer to how Nalina edited than Cyb Bots. Given the CU commenting about LOUT socking, I'd be shocked if they weren't on a new account, I just don't know who.

Hmmmm, Nalina like to put detailed summaries of critical reviews, and used the phrasing "critics and audience" a lot. I've been reverting some edits like that in the past week or two, but I can't remember the account making them. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! I'll try to keep an eye on these users for further investigation of them. Dinoz1 (chat?) 14:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you please check this 2 (Aruvi, Anna) article and what's wrong with this 2 article? can you help to remove the deletion discussion? P.Karthik.95 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P.Karthik.95, deletion discussions can't just be arbitrarily removed once started. You need to explain why the article should be kept, using reasons backed by Wikipedia notability standards. Relevant to those articles is Notability (Television) and General notability. To show the subject is notable, you need to have multiple good reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Not a few lines here or there, or routine marketing fluff articles. For example, the Aruvi article when it was nominated looked like this - [8]. Not good. I would have moved it to draft space, but AFD is always an option when you create something in main article space. Ravensfire (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also places where you're clearly using excessive references. For simple facts like if a person is cast, use only one good source, not multiple. If the two sources say basically the same time (Actor XYZ is cast in show PDQ coming soon!!!!!!!!!), that gets treated as a single source by an AFD reviewer, so just use one source only there. When you're using excessive refs, it looks like you're desperate to get the article kept and adding every little source you can find, and you're not really evaluating the sources. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope you are doing fine. I would like to bring to your kind attention towards article Yeh Hai Chahatein, it requires cleanup, the plot is extensively heavy and elongated with the show crossing 1000+ episodes. i cannot figure what to do. Can you please have a look at the article and show us some way? thankyou so much!! Imsaneikigai (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking because every article, my edits are being reverted by you. Anyway, thank you for the advice and I will use the right and reliable sources next time.12first34 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@12first34, I've got some 70k edits since 2007, and 12,000 pages on my watch list - which is a long way of saying I've been editing here a while. You had edited a couple of articles on my watchlist, and when I saw multiple places where you were changing numbers away from what the sources say, it's quite common to also check your other edits. One of the hardest things on Wikipedia is when you KNOW that something isn't right, but you can't find a reliable source to back you up, only blogs, forum posts, junk websites, you can't make the change. Wikipedia articles need to be supported by reliable sources, so that readers can verify what's in the article. It's hard to trust any number of strangers, so requiring sources means readers can understand where that information comes from. Read some of the linked pages in the welcome message I left, they get into this in more detail and some other topics that you might find helpful. Good luck! Ravensfire (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add the montage to the Wikipedia page of Kumkum bhagya? There was one but unfortunately it got removed. There’s a new montage now available on zee5. Please upload that to the page. Other shows have their montages on Wikipedia except Kumkum bhagya Riah101 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Files for upload. You will have to give them the image source, and it cannot be a fan-created image. Ravensfire (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of an old message, but this sockpuppet tried to get me blocked, AND GOT HIS TALK PAGE ACCESS REVOKED A FEW DAYS LATER! On top of that, HE PUT THE SAME EMAIL IN HIS EDIT SUMMARY THAT HIS SOCKMASTER PUT! If you're going to go undercover, do it right! 🤣 Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They must have gone to the Shaggy School of Responsibility - "It Wasn't Me!"

"CU came in and they caught me red-handed,
Editing with same phone as before,
Picture this we were both in Mom's basement
Banging on the edit bar.
How could I forget that I had
Used the same email in my edit summary.
All this time they watched,
And couldn't believe my stupidity."

(with significant apologies to Shaggy for that butchery of his song) Ravensfire (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAH! Shaggy would be proud of that! The vandalizer probably got his Master's Degree in Vandalism from the Taco Bell toilet! Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{tps}} nice DMacks (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS! He did it again! (a good 15 times) Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/box-office/2018-box-office-collection-day-13-tovino-thomas-starrer-disaster-drama-mints-rs-111-crores/articleshow/100348831.cms?from=mdr Bijzindia (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bijzindia, it's helpful to make sure to include some context on what you're talking about so I don't have to try to puzzle out which article you mean. It looks like you are talking about the film 2018. The WP:BURDEN is on the person making the edit to include a new source if the old one doesn't support the changes. This edit [9] didn't do that, so I reverted to the source given. I would suggest making an edit request on the article talk page for the change you want made, along with the source you linked above. Ravensfire (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Malayalam Movie '2018' Bijzindia (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly treat this as a warning, and restrict yourself from destructing the content in articles and knowledge base on Wikipedia. It takes time and effort to add or modify content, and you just revert it blindly. This kind of behaviour and actions are not at all acceptable here. 106.51.81.97 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the WP:SPAM links you continue to add despite warnings is never, ever vandalism. You're welcome to discuss this on the article talk page and alternatively, at the External link noticeboard. Pushing your website as you've been doing is not acceptable however, and you need to stop. If needed, the site may be put on the spam black list which will stop you or anyone else from adding further links. Ravensfire (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ravensfire. I see from your edits that there's maybe UPE by two very recently created, single-issue accounts, G20norms (talk · contribs) and The haul (talk · contribs).

Not sure if you've seen it, but there's also an SPI investigation that mentions The Haul and has attracted G20norms: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ankit Krs Pandey, which may be related. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can we close SPI investigation G20norms (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By waiting patiently while the investigation is carried out, and decisions are made. You can also add your own comments about the investigation (in the right place) on the SPI page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Esowteric, I'm at least suspicious about them, it seems really odd that two editors are pushing an article about someone as relatively minor as Panday. Being an "ambassador" doesn't seem to be a big deal (there's over 200 listed on the fit india website!). So why the push other than paid editing or COI editing? That's about all I can figure. The SPI will be interesting. Ravensfire (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ravensfire I updated the whole page of Singer Sumedha Karmahe, that got restored to a previous version. Can you please explain why? All the changes were done by me with the facts provided by Sumedha herself. Paragjha90 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tirishan (talk) is trying to destroy the pages likes: (Ponni, Kanne Kalaimaane, Eeramana Rojave 2, Muthazhagu, Kanne Kalaimaane, Karthigai Deepam and Anna) of my has been reviewed. can you please stop him. he doing same thing for all article. please please help me. P.Karthik.95 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P.Karthik.95, First, WP:AGF that they are making good faith edits. You're over-reacting. Take their edit at Anna - [10]. They tagged a section as unsourced, that was in fact unsourced. I removed that section because it wasn't sourced, tagging was being nice. The rest are taking the article to AFD. Again, that's not trying to destroy the pages. Karthigai_Deepam_(TV_series) has a lot of sources but many look like pre-release fluff and hype. Same with the other articles, but with fewer sources. Like WAY too many articles in the India TV area, the article gets created when the show starts, and then nothing else. How was it received? Reviews? Nothing. My advice would be to stop with the "trying to destroy" hyperbole and respond with policy based points (hint, look at WP:NTVNATL which is an essay, but offers some advice). And improve the articles. Don't ref-bomb (which is what's been done at Karthigai_Deepam) - finding two articles that say basically the same thing isn't helpful. Add sources to unsourced information in those articles. Find better sources, add those extra details and absolutely comment on the AFD discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok sir, Please give me some time, i make sure make better. what about remake serial, most of remake (Karthigai_Deepam_(TV_series)) serial have a same plot. how can make difference? most of reference in Tamil language, it is any problem? P.Karthik.95 (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P.Karthik.95 , I have zero control over any other user or of any process that's started. You've got a large number of edits, you should know how to improve articles. putting out basic promotional articles is not helpful. read the notability guidelines, you need to prove the articles to meet those and comment on the AFD discussions not that the criteria is met, but HOW the criteria is met. Ravensfire (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

shivangi joshi is popular and highest paid actress. and her networth is 37 crore which was said by etimes. she even participated in box criket league season 2 Shreejash Tuladhar (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shreejash Tuladhar, the problem is that you're adding the information without a reliable source to support it. Please READ the messages left on your talk page, especially the linked pages that help explain why sources are needed and how you can add them in your edit. If you continue to add the information without a source, it will continue to be removed and eventually lead to you being blocked from editing. Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yenda ipdi pandra Ramsayramsamy (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramsayramsamy , this is the English Wikipedia, please use English to communicate. Ravensfire (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: Hey, psycho. Why are you doing this? Based on the edits to Yuvan Shankar Raja discography, it is clear that User:Pradeep yuvan is back. DareshMohan (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, figured that out. Which just gets me to look at the articles a bit harder and cull out the fancruft that keeps getting added. Which probably will make them hate me even more, but hey, I can deal with that, as long as the articles keep improving. Ravensfire (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ravensfire,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 72 Hoorain for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want 72 Hoorain to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nagol0929 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagol0929 thank you! Not sure why the move to draft script didn't do that automatically. Appreciate the tag and the note! Ravensfire (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nah it did i just didnt see it at first. Nagol0929 (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ravensfire,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

I request you to comment on this discussion. Thanks. Cinephilekrr (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now at RSN - please do !vote. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]