User talk:Epicion

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]

Hi Epicion! 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! Kailash29792 (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Thudarum, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what I have removed, you can understand the mistakes written there. Epicion (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Madharasi, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the sources are not reliable. Do you reliable sources? It would be better if you look the edit before reverting. Epicion (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Gangers (film): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. –HirowoWiki (📝) 03:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Epicion (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retro

[edit]

Hi @Epicion

On retro box office on source E24 Bollywood there are 2 reports

1. [1] which states 97 crores.

2. [2] which states 250 crores.

Should this be used? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first report is from Sacnilk, the source states "सैकल्निक रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक". Hence it is WP:FRUIT. The second source looks no issues.
I also noticed now that The Economic Times is a WP:CIRCULAR source which is copied from Wikipedia. Epicion (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can remove E24 due to inconsistency.
How about this report from Indian Express - [3] Tonyy Starkk (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this source as it does not involve ant fruit. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source is The New Indian Express. It is not listed in WP:ICTFSOURCES. Also you didn't removed Economic Times source as is copied from Wikipedia. 2409:40F3:D:C7F9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New Indian Express is the bifurcated South Indian edition of the Indian Express as mentioned in the article. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not listed in WP:ICTFSOURCES.
New Indian Express source is copied from inconsistent India Today source.
Both sources have similar plot summary with character names and actors names in brackets.
Both sources states about themes of "love", "loss", and "redemption".
Both sources states grossed "over Rs 80 crore worldwide".
Both states about "mixed" reviews.
Both sources states “Coming Soon” section.
Hence it fails fact checking. 2409:40F3:D:C7F9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2409:40F3:D:C7F9:8000:0:0:0 I am not sure why you are so obsessed with the film Retro. There is clear inconsistency in its box office reporting, yet you are adamant that its collections are only above 200 and dismiss any source reporting less as unreliable.
Wikipedia is not a space where you decide the box office numbers; we have to consider all possible reliable sources and mention a range, not what you prefer. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How just me obsessed? You too are adding low figures. I know wikipedia is not a place where we can add our wished box office. But wikipedia have some policies of reliability. The sources must be fact checked. This New Indian Express clearly shows they are copied from India Today. Hence it fails fact checking. 2409:40F3:D:C7F9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by “low figures”? Those are figures reported by reliable sources. Some report lower and some higher, and when such discrepancies exist it is recommended to present a range rather than removing them.
You are questioning the reliability of The Indian Express and India Today, both of which are widely recognized and frequently cited sources for box office reporting. Given the clear inconsistency in available data, maintaining a range is the appropriate approach. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not reported by reliable sources. They are copy of one anothers. I have told you several times about this. Still saying again. India Today reported ₹80 crore on 6 May 2025[1]. But reported ₹100 crore on 8 May 2025[2]. On 26 May, After 20 days from 6 May, India Today again reported ₹80 crore[3] It clearly shows their inconsistency. Then New Indian Express came and copied India Today's article, showing their poor fact-checking. 2409:40F3:D:C7F9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792 Please state your opinion on this. I am fed up replying the same thing again and again. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you fed up when saying a opinion. The unreliable and poor fact-checking sources must not be used in article, even if it is from reputed publications. This is Wikipedia's policy. 2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@2409:40F3:D:C7F9:8000:0:0:0
Dont you think these sources that you stated are inconsistent???
1. E24 Bollywood
[4] - 97 crore
[5] - 250 crore
2. News 18
[6] - 96.97 crore
[7] - 200 crore
3. Money Control
[8] - 21 crore (India)
[9] - 250 crore
4. Zee News
[10] - 96.97 crore
[11] - 250 crore
But for you only India Today and The Indian Express are not reliable right? Tonyy Starkk (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All these sources are copied from Sacnilk. Hence they are not reliable. Per WP:FRUIT They should not be used. But 2nd sources of each of them are not copy of Sacnilk. Hence it can be used. India Today reported ₹80 crore on 6 May 2025[4]. But reported ₹100 crore on 8 May 2025[5]. On 26 May, After 20 days from 6 May, India Today again reported ₹80 crore[6] Hence they become inconsistent. New Indian Express copied from India Today and made an article. So they have poor fact-checking. 2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. If India Today reports two different numbers, you call both unreliable, but if News18 or Moneycontrol report two different numbers (one from Sacnilk), you dismiss one and accept the other as reliable. The level of hypocrisy here is apparent.
2. And the claim that The New Indian Express “copied from India Today” is simply baseless. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't call India Today and New Indian Express unreliable. Read my respone clearly. India Today reported ₹80 crore on 6 May 2025[7]. But reported ₹100 crore on 8 May 2025[8]. On 26 May, After 20 days from 6 May, India Today again reported ₹80 crore[9] It clearly shows their inconsistency. We should follow wikipedia policies and reliable proper fact-checked sources. Here India Today reports different figures. For India Today, box office figures will increase (₹100 crore) and then gradually decreases to 80 crore, the collection they reported 20 days before. This report was copied by New Indian Express. If you check the time of its publication. New Indian Express published the article after India Today published. The poor fact-checking sources are not allowed in articles per Wikipedia policies. 2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonyy Starkk: I have removed the sources for now due to the concerns raised. They can be added back once consensus is reached. Epicion (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicion I guess the box office as a whole can be removed for now until we get clear consensus. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As sources cited now have no issues and have added with proper discussion, let it be there. Upcoming sources will surely be added only with discussions. Epicion (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the no issues with The New India Express source, the claim of copied is entirely baseless, that need not have been removed. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New Indian Express source is copied from inconsistent India Today source.
Both sources have similar plot summary with character names and actors names in brackets.
Both sources states about themes of "love", "loss", and "redemption".
Both states about "mixed" reviews.
Both sources states “Coming Soon” section.
Hence it fails fact checking. 2409:40F3:15:2839:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicion, in the Retro talk page there is no proper concensus on the currently existing sources. In the discussion it states "Looking back through the talk page, it appears the box office figures for this film have been the focus of extensive controversy, sockpuppetry, and edit warring. Therefore, a consensus will be required before any changes are made." And I cannot see anyone further discussing, hence currently removing all the sources and can be added after we get proper concensus for all the sources. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Socks are not active now. Last version of ₹200–250 crore was clearly discussed and added with proper consensus. 2409:40F3:15:2839:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mars

[edit]

mars planet 2409:4072:6C0A:BA81:D0E2:6F63:B932:C42E (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/karthik-subbaraj-on-his-next-after-retro-want-to-make-an-indie-film-2720434-2025-05-06
  2. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/suriya-donates-rs-10-crore-from-retro-profits-to-agaram-foundation-2721542-2025-05-08
  3. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/retro-ott-release-when-and-where-to-watch-suriyas-gangster-drama-2730606-2025-05-26
  4. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/karthik-subbaraj-on-his-next-after-retro-want-to-make-an-indie-film-2720434-2025-05-06
  5. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/suriya-donates-rs-10-crore-from-retro-profits-to-agaram-foundation-2721542-2025-05-08
  6. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/retro-ott-release-when-and-where-to-watch-suriyas-gangster-drama-2730606-2025-05-26
  7. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/karthik-subbaraj-on-his-next-after-retro-want-to-make-an-indie-film-2720434-2025-05-06
  8. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/suriya-donates-rs-10-crore-from-retro-profits-to-agaram-foundation-2721542-2025-05-08
  9. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/retro-ott-release-when-and-where-to-watch-suriyas-gangster-drama-2730606-2025-05-26