Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:01, 10 March 2009

well my last two references (ie) reference 21 and 22 in asin's page say that the movie's name is just '19th Step'. even asin's official site says so. so i think it is '19th Step' only. not everyone can be wrong :) --Coolmukund (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No probs

No problem! :-)Clubover (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Again - No Probs! Clubover (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Ultramegasuperstar! I am Tinucherian and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

-- Tinu Cherian - 08:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tinu Cherian sir --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Try reading up on the Manual of Style, or NPOV. No "award-winning" gibberish in the lead sentence. I will let you re-revert. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. Didn't realize you were so new here. I'll take care of reverting your erroneous edits. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prabhu Deva Sundaram. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Explain removal of tag in the talk page J.Mundo (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Salim-Javed, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you again remove maintenance templates from Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Fatih Akın, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been blocked for 12 hours for edit warring across various articles. This is meant largely as a restraint against disruption of those articles, not as a comment on the righteousness of your actions. Remember, edit warring does not mean strictly violating the three-revert rule. If you feel this block has been made in error, please appeal it by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talk page. When your block expires you are welcome to return to editing. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Very likely that the edit war won't continue. Request handled by: Protonk (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am contacting the blocking admin; it looks to me like you did indeed stop when warned. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are willing to unblock I'm perfectly ok with that. I blocked both accounts because things seemed to be getting out of hand pretty quickly and both sides had been reverting/re-reverting over the disputed material (both the removal and the tagging). It was literally to prevent future disruption rather than a note on explicitly poor past behavior. I'd unblock myself but the template looks unwieldy. :) Protonk (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock me before these 12 hours expire. It's just embarrassing me and i would have a bad stand infront the community, if it just stays as it is in the block log :( --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. Sorry, figured Daniel would be around much more quickly than that. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem and thanks! --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this whole mess got out of hand. And please remember, the block isn't a mark of shame (as much as some might view it as one...). Good luck editing in the future. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I will keep this in my head, thanks again for your well wishes :-) --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nairsan (film) v Nair San (film)

I didn't want to make a big fuss, but having found numerous problems with english translation of Indian films, I naturally tried variations of the spelling when doing a google. When I did the old seperate the sylables check.... BINGO. Combining that with Chan's name showed a treasure trove of potential sources for expansion. The website may be called nairsan.com, but even it lists the film as Nair San. That the film is getting lots of press coverage is great, and pushes the general notability guideline, but find some sources that say the filming has either finished, is currently filming, or that it will begin filming very very soon. That is the only weakness with the article. Best, Schmidt, 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find more reliable sources for the shooting. After i replied at the deletion page, I myself got a second thought about this whole thing again. I'm pretty sure now, that the real title is Nair San - not Nairsan! --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Did some further sourcing. Got to get ready for work, but you may find something suitable at google news or an extensive google search. Schmidt, 18:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I will work on it to improve the article. Great thanks for your kind help! --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help out. Good luck to you. Schmidt, 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tamil People

Hi, Thanks for letting me know. But It seems you changed the Current picture with yours. So I did not edit it. Anyway another user asked me to put up the old typical Tamil Family picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop reverting Filmfare Awards from the lead of A.R Rahman. Filmfare has been proved to be one of the most prominent and veteran film award functions in India. This issue is quite controversial so I suggest you to just stop it here, else you'll be blocked immediately. So remember it was the last warning.

As for order, it should be from list important to most important, as it is done in several featured articles.

And one more thing. Don't you ever dare call someone's edits vandalism when it is not. I hope for you that you got it all well. Shahid • 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I failed up to being reliable sources? I have many MANY sources, so don't make me laugh and don't make me request a check user on you and your IP cause I start suspecting.

"The Filmfare awards are one of the most prominent film awards in the country." - here you have a great source. I don't talk about its being the Indian Oscars but its national prominence, which is very well established. Shahid • 12:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It says "in" the country, not "of" the country. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no difference, don't make up stories to build your POV. Are you a sock puppet? Of whom? Of this anon 195...? Of Clubover?

Don't worry it will be checked. Shahid • 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

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

Request reason:

Why exactly 31 h? Is this really appropriate? I didn't get a 3RR warning by anyone, hence I thought, people support my edits due to WP:3RR page ("revert obvious vandalism immediately"). According to this lines 3RR doesn't apply in this case. I'm a little bit confused about the outcome, although i understand, that I was blocked. Why then write such sentence in the incidents page? I wouldn't have done the reverts then.. please reconsider at least the length of the block time.

Decline reason:

You did get a warning; it remains on your talkpage above the block notice. And the edits which you repeatedly reverted are conceivably controversial, relating as they do to the importance of the FilmFare awards, but they were certainly not vandalism.--Anthony.bradbury 16:54, 8 March 2009 (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.

UNBLOCK

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

Request reason:

YellowMonkey blocked me 1 month for sockpuppetry. There is no way, that I'm a sockpuppet. This is my only nick here, and there will be no other. Please de-admin YellowMonkey for this chauvinistic behaviour. I suspect, he is helping User:Shshshsh in the Talk:A. R. Rahman case. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Obvious sockpuppet. Should probably be indef blocked. Kafziel 08:21, 10 March 2009 (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.

This is a very questionable block. Even if he had different usernames or IP's, he did nothing wrong at all. Sockpuppetry is considered illegal, if it's abused. And this is not the case here. This may also be a revenge attack on this user, because the suspected IP may had filed the incident against YellowMonkey recently, couple of days ago. I support a de-admin of User:YellowMonkey --Bollywood-Turk (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Sockpuppets are not illegal. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sockpuppets are not illegal. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sockpuppets are not illegal. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

1. http://www.asinonline.com/upcomingmovies.htm

• Requests for unblock