This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people They should not be given alerts for those areas.

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 Archive for 2023

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[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

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
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) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop changing the Chak De! India language, or you will be blocked. Chak De India was released in both English and Hindi. There was just a lot of mix. 136.61.220.103 (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read the documentation for the ((infobox film)). The language is only for the primary language of the film in the original filming. Nothing in the article supports including english (hint - you need reliable sources for this. Ravensfire (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Sunny Deol's page, under acting career section, you changed the subtitle "1990-2003: Action Superstar", to List of programs broadcast by Asianet"1990-2003: Established actor". The Action superstar is far more suitable to describe this phase of Sunny Deol's career instead of your suggestion. First, it marks the point that during this phase, Deol had success in the action genre, and second, the moniker of superstar marks the height of his popularity during this period (this moniker has been used by Box Office India and TOI to address Deol's influence during the 90s and early 00s). The subtitle "established actor" is too basic and doesn't reflect the true nature of the content below. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Parminder Sarwara, It's a section heading and yes, it should be fairly basic in description. This is an encyclopedia, not a hype sheet. Please follow WP:BRD and since you Bold change has been Reverted, you need to get consensus for the change by Discussing this on the article talk page. Remember that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and non-promotional in tone, written in a professional manner. Ravensfire (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then why is the term "Superstardom" is used on Amitabh Bachchan's page? And this is not promotional, it is literally a fact. I can cite multiple sources for this but we can't link sources in the section heading. The section heading should represent what the content is about. By basic, I meant that Established actor is too vague, whereas Action superstar is more specific and precise, better descriptor of the section. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, other articles are hype-driven. Easy counter-example from articles that get far more attention - Sylvester Stallone, Chris Evans (actor) and especially Amy Adams which is a Featured Article, which recognizes exceptional quality in articles. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is just a matter of opinion. And they aren't necessarily hype driven if it's literally true. Amitabh was a superstar and the section heading used in his page makes complete sense. Isn't the entire point of Wikipedia is for editors to contribute verified information, if the information is verified, there should be no incentive to change it. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're not going to respond, I will go ahead and change the section heading. Alright? Parminder Sarwara (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Parminder Sarwara, please start a discussion on the article talk page for this. I continue to object to your opinion that this is a better section heading, as that's all it is, it's your opinion and it's getting into original research by applying titles like this to broad timeframes. The best guidance youList of programs broadcast by Asianet can find is what featured articles use, as those are vetted by a broad range of editors before getting that status, and the examples I showed you don't use language like that. But please, the article talk page going forward. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still pretty new to this. Where is the article talk page and how do I post there? And what's going to happen if I post there? Parminder Sarwara (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So most pages on Wikipedia have a main page and a talk page. Sunny Deol and Talk:Sunny Deol. When you're wanting to discuss article content, it's tempting and initially easier to just use the user talk page of the other person, but there's a couple of issues with that approach. One, it can be challenging when multiple people are involved. Two, articles often have a wider range of interested people watching the article (and the associated talk page) then would be watching a specific user's talk page, so you cut out potential participants by using a user talk page. Finally, it's always far easier to have discussions about article content in one place, the article talk page, as it allows editors in the future to understand how the page content evolved over time. When the discussion happens in multiple user pages, that's nearly impossible to find. An ideal approach is to use start a discussion on the article talk page and leave a note on user talk pages pointing to that discussion. Remember Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, having other editors see and get involved in content discussions is a Good Thing(tm) and brings more viewpoints that can lead to a better consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A guy called Timothy blue, that person who don't have any idea about Asianet channel blocked me despite me adding a lot of data from my own research as for this guy there are no references?? What a person he is??? Let me ask you do you think it is easy to get references from 1993 to 2008 regarding Asianet programs from internet?? A guy who doesn't even know a serial like chandanamazha, or great shows like kannadi, nammal thammil being telecasted is blocking me for what reason??? Manish Asianet (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Manish Asianet, first, please don't come here with personal attacks on another editor. That's not helpful. The issue with your edits is that they are contrary to one of the main concepts of Wikipedia, that information in articles can be verified by the reader. That's done by including references that support the information in the articles. I assure you that every editor who's been around more than a few months has run into the scenario where they can't find a good reference for what they want to add. Whether it doesn't exist, or you can find it online but it's on a blog, personal website, forum or some other unreliable source.

Generally, yes, the right answer is to realize that without those sources, the information can't be added to the article. Remember that readers don't know you or me (not to mention you don't know me or visa versa), so the only way they can trust what's in the article is to have that reference. This is true for math articles, geography articles and yes, media articles. Old films and shows in the US are in the same situation, sources are challenging to find online. Remember though that offline resources ARE allowed (WP:OFFLINE), for example newspaper articles that haven't been archived online but are accessible in some manner and you can completely describe the source. Some newspapers are available on microfiche still, but they haven't been put online. Or there may be just a clipping, but with enough to know the paper, date and page.

Adding information without sources is called original research, and it's really not allowed here. I completely get your frustration, but you also need to realize that Wikipedia strives to be a professional encyclopedia and that comes with some requirements. If this was a Fandom style wiki, you're probably all good, but there's a higher standard here. Hope this helps you understand where TimothyBlue is coming from. They have to enforce those standards equally on all editors. It's not personal, and they do care about the topic. You're a new editor here, take the advice and suggestions you've been given as they are intended, to help you understand how Wikipedia works, suggest ways to address the concerns that have been raised and ultimately help you be a better editor and improve Wikipedia as a whole.

TimothyBlue isn't an admin, so they cannot block you from editing, but they can leave warning messages and try to get you to understand the issues with your edits and if needed, they can raise the concerns on an admin noticeboard for an admin to review and determine if action needs to be taken. Please don't ignore their warnings, but understand they are trying to be helpful and guide you towards what's needed to address the concerns they have with your edits. Ravensfire (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of the sourcing concerns around older shows highlights something I see with far too many TV channels, and not just in India. They have what's on right now, but only what's on right now. Why not have a history page, with what they've shown in the past. Wishful thinking, I suspect, most Indian award show websites don't even have the past nominees and winners, which is just crazy. Ravensfire (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this reply is completely professional Manish Asianet (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ravensfire: I have recently done 3 reverts on List of programs broadcast by Asianet but doing more seems a bit pointless as I do not think that I could keep up with the rate of additions. I also put a "Please stop attacking other editors" warning on User talk:Manish Asianet on 20 Jan 2024. I did not know about your exchange here. Most of the recent refs seem to be from Asianet website so they do not help.
I had earlier (18 Jan) put a request on AN/I about another editor's related edits with no refs (now in archive 1147). That resulted in a block.
Unless you suggest otherwise I do not plan to get involved further.BlueWren0123 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for correcting the date of my article reference Thank you very much Varmakumar200 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]