User talk:Loviraldna

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Loviraldna! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Neutral Point of View Attribution Cite your sources Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

trivia

Yes, you are trying to add an "in the media" section. However, just because something is factual or even sourced does not mean that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. You can go to the article talk page and try and gain a consensus that that particular commercial is important enough in the scope of the coverage of his life and impact to merit a full call out section, or whether its mere trivia appropriate for the gossip columns but of no encyclopedic value.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

you will need to go to the article talk page and start a discussion there that shows there is a consensus for including such content. but even if there is an agreement that the items are worthy of inclusion, it will still need to be re-written because jargon such a "roped in" has no place in an encyclopedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

and "a lot of other articles" are really bad too and need to be cleaned up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox content

Hi, I understand that you might be frustrated with some recent back-and-forth editing at Ranveer Singh, but this edit was not constructive. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize information already present in the article. When you deleted the "relatives" data from the infobox, you were doing harm to the article, although I know that was not your intention. But the edit above, where you deleted the entire infobox, was clearly disruptive. Perhaps you misinterpreted TheRedPenofDoom's edit summary prior to that edit? As a relatively new user, you might find it easier to ask other users why they have reverted your edits, as they may be willing to explain their rationale. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

--> thanks, i understood the issue now. :) Yes, i had misunderstood her summary. I thought i was asked to remove all info in info box and not leave anything if the same info is there on the article.

Great! Crisis averted! If you have questions, feel free to ask. Good luck! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)