User talk:Political Cricketer/Archive 2

Home

Talk

Contributions

Random

September 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Nandamuri Balakrishna into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@ NeilN: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Whenever I try to copy material from other article I'll follow the terms of condition. PK ^talk 16:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Rudhramadevi a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 13:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Bovineboy2008: Thank you for your suggestion. I know about the move option but don't know about the requested moves. I tried to move the article but failed since there existed another article. Hence I copied and pasted from one article to other. And I fixed and set the all redirects to the new one to avoid struggling others. PK ^talk 07:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I (film)

Where is d link to d reference u mentioned, bro? :D Ssven2 (Ssven2)

Oh Yeah. LOL :P. Looking forward to working with you, bro :D. Ssven2 (Ssven2)

A page you started (Extra Jabardasth) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Extra Jabardasth, Political Cricketer!

Wikipedia editor Erik L'Ensle just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice.

To reply, leave a comment on Erik L'Ensle's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

vandalism alert

NOTE: Simple Wikipedia is not acceptable as a resource all these references are baselss, how many times i should explain to you, i have explained clearly and made the content deletion, think before you explain your edit summaries. if u have not entered the 10 20 30 40 crore club ? why ru including it ? stop this nonsense. First you correct your nonsense and replace what ever you wish to replace. 10, 20 30 40 crore clubs not acceptable. Dookudu worldwide gross is 101 crore how many times I should correct it. cant you understand what I am writing Danice thrall (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

gross and share

gross and share are separate I agree, but why are u including this non sense of 10 20 30 40 50 core club? and why are you simply increasing the list of films on and on an on ?

I am writing to you about worldwide gross of dookudu 101 cr which is way higher than that of magadheera, then how magadheera comes in number 2 position of gross

kindly stop promoting your favourite pawan kalyan and chiranjeevi's son that ram charan tejas films

these listings are completely speculative, but the worldwide gross of listings which i have included in my version are reliable, non speculative (because they are published by business standard, economic times, and ibt times)

magadheera worldwide gross is 80 cr and dookudu is 101 cr this is the correct figure.

See here:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/Dookudu-touches-the-one-billion-mark/articleshow/10793015.cms

I cant argue with you any more, and I am not going to endorse your pov pushing.

further, before you include your new list of worldwide share and worldwide gross, including dubbed versions, please for gods sake dont include this 10 20 30 40 crore club non sense okay, and also please restricyt your list to only five films, dont include nayak, yevadu, badshah, mirchi etc, below 40 crore will not come under, highest grossing films every other film of jr ntr, ram charan grosses 20-30 crore so please dont include all 10000 telugu films in your list, and kindly please please stop this non sense of adding references from great andhra etc, and please refrain from adding your favourite gross figures.

please dont revert back the content which you have not included for gods sake, stop this non sense and dont message me,

under any circumstances I will not allow speculative meaningless additions.

Danice thrall (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) movies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard Danice thrall (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

speculative content

I am writing about speculative content and exhaustive inclusions of lists of movies, like nayak, badshah etc, and your false claims of worldwide gross of magadheera, along with 10 20 30 40 cr clubs not references. Danice thrall (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

parent wiki

simple.wikipedia is not parent wiki, stop citing that as your bible Danice thrall (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Danice thrall: In simple wiki all figures are included with reliable sources. I think you are thinking that all the sources which are added by me are unreliable. Just visit them. PK ^talk 15:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

simple wiki

simple wiki is not regular wiki, please don't message me unless and until you correct the article and ranking of magadheera and dookudu, and all the changes I suggested. I will not stop reverting your edits until then Danice thrall (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Danice thrall: Ignore the simple or english wiki. And tell me the name of the reference which you think false. The article in simple wiki includes 25+ TOI, 25+ IBTimes and 10+ The Hindu and some other references which are around 10%. Which of those are false or speculative? PK ^talk 16:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

row spans

Its a big article and I cleaned up part of it. If it bothers you that its not completely cleaned, you can keep cleaning up the rest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

gross collections

Dear sir,

gross collections are not controversial. Only Gabbar Singh figures are controversial. Hence, I removed it and included others. Kindly check the edits of other editors by assuming good faith. Grosshigh (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Eega

In that case, all films box office information is speculative. Then find out Eega worldwide share and include it. It is one of the highest grossing films and you are not including it. So kindly include Eega figures and then restore the template in eega film section. what ever you think is correct, and you are using those figures. What illogical editing is this Grosshigh (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)