User talk:Tusk001

Welcome![edit]

Hi Tusk001! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 06:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Hello, I'm Wasell. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") might cause problems for some readers. This is because it includes a link outside your user-space; or no link at all. Under our policies, signatures should contain a link to at least one of the following: your userpage, user talk page or contributions log. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising signatures. Thank you. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 06:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of highest-grossing Malayalam films. 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grachester (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please mention that the edit I made appeared to be disruptive? I based my edits on tracking figures and reliable sources, such as Times of India, which I have already mentioned in the article's talk page. It would have been helpful if you had checked them properly before posting unnecessary comments on my talk page. Tusk001 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you see that I have updated the collection with proper references to support my claims? https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2023/may/16/survival-thriller-2018-surging-towards-rs-100-crore-mark-2575463.htmlTherefore, it is unnecessary for you to post vandalism on my talk page. you should remove it. Tusk001 (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is from May 16. It lists the gross for Lucifer as 127 crore. The Hindustan Times source is from June 4th and shows that the gross had increased by then to 175 crore. How can you possibly believe that 127 crore is the correct amount to list? The box office take for Lucifer increased in the month between the two sources. You deliberately introducing false information to articles is clear vandalism. Me reverting you is not. Grachester (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When editing Wikipedia or any other platform, it is indeed important to thoroughly fact-check and verify information before making edits or accusations. Upon reviewing the sources you mentioned, I see that the Hindustan Times post is from June 4th, 2019, while the Indian Express post is from 2023. Additionally, the Hindustan Times article mentioned that the collection was based on a report from Manorama, but i couldn't find such an article in Manorama. Therefore, it seems evident that the article was solely based on the promotional figures available at the time of release. Given these factors, it is reasonable to consider the collection by Indian Express as more convincing and reliable, being the more recent source. Tusk001 (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right. I had misread the dates. Apologies. I agree the New Indian Express source is more recent, so should be used. Grachester (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Hello, Tusk Please check the vandalism happening on the page. It is so hard to perform repeat reversions and make it even harder for adding Kannur Squad updates Arjunsoumithran (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you please explain the vandalism you mentioned on the page? I believe it involves adding fictitious figures like the 175 crore collection for 'Lucifer' and some misleading 100 crore collections. We've previously engaged with and subsequently blocked multiple users over this issue. Please attempt to address this concern through the talk page of the article.

Additionally, kindly issue a warning message on their talk page.

If they persist in such behavior, even after three warnings, the account will be subject to blocking.

Also, ensure that proper references and conclusions are provided on the page's talk page, so that others may refer to them before making edits Tusk001 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, by which I mean, collections might be different, but at least the films on the list should be all of these https://twitter.com/VRFridayMatinee/status/1711051521092403303 Also corrections have to be made for 2018 and Pulimurugan which appears not as same as others Arjunsoumithran (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to review and update the collection figures if you believe they are incorrect, and ensure that proper references are provided for accuracy. Additionally, verify whether the current reference or the one you have is more trustworthy ,genuine and recent . And don't just blindly add a reference to prove your point. Make sure it makes sense as well. Tusk001 (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm The Herald. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I didn't want to template you, but you have been warned previously also regarding the unreferenced additions of box office figures. Kindly be careful. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Herald, Thank you for your message.

I appreciate your diligence in monitoring edits to the article. I did indeed add proper references to support the changes made. Since the update of the collection did occur back to back, the reference inclusion may have appeared as a delay, but rest assured, it was part of the update process.

Regarding your mention of previous warnings, this was the same case that time, and I added proper references then as well. I also made sure to include appropriate replies. It might be helpful to review the content and references before issuing warnings or templates on talk pages.

Additionally, I'd like to suggest that in cases where there are questions or concerns about edits, we could discuss them on the article's talk page or my talk page before resorting to warnings and changing the edits. Open communication can often help prevent misunderstandings and ensure that improvements are made collaboratively.

Thank you for your understanding.

Currently, I have reverted back the changes with proper references as well.

I look forward to resolving any issues regarding the recent edits.

Thanks,

Tusk001 Tusk001 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around and you know how it works. That article is protected due to the uncited additions and if you yourself are adding such an unreferenced addition, it's clearly WP:DISRUPTION. This was already pointed out to you before also. As with your argument that it was back to back, the revert I made was almost one hour after you added the unsourced figure. If you are under the process of editing, you can include that in your edit summary, saying the reference will be added soon or you can use {{in work}} template. Thanks. (Also, the above reply sounded a lot like AI generated, lol. Read WP:LLM a read too. Ignore if negative.) Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI @The Herald,

In general, Wikipedia places a high value on the addition of accurate and verifiable information. I am aware that Wikipedia maintains strict guidelines and policies to uphold the quality of its content. Adding information without proper references is generally considered a concern, but if a valid reference is added later, even within a short timeframe (as you mentioned, just an hour), it is typically seen as an improvement rather than disruption.

By ensuring that I added a valid reference to support the information promptly, I believe I am in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. If there are any concerns about the accuracy or reliability of the information, I am open to collaboration, and other Wikipedia editors may review and make any necessary adjustments.

In this specific case, it's important to note that I did not make any changes or edits to the existing page; rather, I took the initiative to introduce new information that I believe enhances the content. This should be viewed as an improvement to the page rather than a disruption.

I am open to collaboration and welcome any suggestions or improvements to the contribution. It's crucial to remember that Wikipedia is a platform for sharing and producing accurate and timely information. The rules are in place to ensure the correctness of information, and they serve the only purpose of maintaining the integrity of the content, and not merely as arbitrary restrictions

Thanks, Tusk001 (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a journal or any such source which has to provide exact and accurate and up to date information. In fact, Wikipedia is a secondary source, which relies on other independent sources which can validate the information it provides by citing references from reliable sources. So, it is indeed considered disruptive editing when you are adding uncited information, even though you were planning to add citation later, all assuming good faith. So, you HAVE to provide citations for any information you add, bro. Wikipedia is not a place for exact accurate information. Trust me, I've been around and have over a decade of experience with editing. I assumed good faith and just gave a warning. You could be blocked for persistent disruptive if you continue adding unsourced info, even if you were planning to add citations later or after an hour or after a day. So, please keep it in mind. It would be sad to lose an editor like you to that. So you the in work template or mention it in your summary promptly. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The Herald

The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to provide accurate , comprehensive and free information on a wide range of topics. It aims to be a collaborative encyclopedia where users contribute and edit content to ensure accuracy and depth of information. While it may include references and external links as sources, its main goal is to present information directly within its articles.

While I understand that Wikipedia's collaborative nature allows for changes, it remains a widely used and valuable resource for immediate information.

The constant updating of content underscores its relevance, and the platform's commitment to accuracy is crucial.

In essence,

A purpose of an encyclopedia is to give accurate information ,

being an online encyclopedia is meaningful only if it provides recent and accurate information, meeting the needs of those seeking instant knowledge.

Citations and references are added to confirm and ensure that information comes from actual, reliable sources. It's not about showcasing multiple citations and references ., but rather ensuring the reliability of the content, and even if you believe otherwise, there's no problem with it unless it disrupts the content.

I believe there is no need for further discussion either.

Thanks , Tusk001 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining Wikipedia to me. I'm done here now. Kindly read WP:NOT in great length, especially WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:VERIFY before any further editing. You are made aware of the policies and guidelines very well now and have received warnings before too. Good luck and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin shopping[edit]

Shopping for admins is highly discouraged and will only draw scrutiny to your own behavior. I encourage you to cease shopping for admins. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

This and this referring to another editor's ego and the like is entirely inappropriate. In addition, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain WP:consensus for your changes. You need to start a discussion on the article's talk page and do not make it about another editor. Simply outline why you believe the sources you are using meets WP:RS, be concise and do not use a LLM. I also suggest posting at WT:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force inviting others to the discussion. S0091 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if any of my messages came across as a personal attack, which was never my intention.

Previously, I added an edit and was an hour late in adding a reference. I rectified this by providing a reliable source, but the other editor expressed dissatisfaction. The second time, he accused me of using an unreliable reference, despite it being from a reputable and widely-used website—already cited multiple times on the page. I am perplexed as the editor did not explain why they deemed it unreliable or why admin intervention was necessary. I remain confused about the situation.

Once again, I extend my apologies if my words seemed like a personal attack; that was never my intention. Tusk001 ([[User t