Talk:Sivakarthikeyan

Untitled

I have proposed this article be deleted as it does not meet WP:NOT and is self promotion. Pearll's Sun^TALK 21:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Sivakarthikeyan have given many Massive hits in the year of 2013 which eventually leads to rise his popularity among peoples of Tamil Nadu. He have also given call sheet to many other movies after the blockbuster hit of Varuthapadatha Valiber Sangam movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.182.192.166 (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ella movie leyum shiva Annan hit tannye I love shiva annan all movie I miss you shiva Annan Shehana nazar (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Content removal

@Materialscientist: The content added by @Universalrahu citing www.chennailivenews.com is a questionable source. Regretfully, it cant be considered as primary source. And since this is a biography of a living person, without a reliable secondary source the content and source do not merit a place in EN WP. And there were some IP's doing test edits in a BLP, amounting to vandalism. Finally, the awards section has a lot of factual errors with no reliable sources amounting to WP:OR. There are a lot of drastic differences between list of awards and nominations on the left side and those numbers within the awards template on the right. This section needs clean up. FYI, @Cyphoidbomb. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 10:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2018

Minnal Star (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Need to add Ravikumar movie and rajesh movie

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I need to add the new film of the Sivakarthikeyan s next production film Haerriz (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Serious problems with the controversies section

After the recent removal and revert of the controversies section I propose we remove it (I will temporarily remove it after making this comment as is usual in BLP pages and either totally rewrite it or leave it out in general.

I propose this because:

• 1) Problems with sources: BollywoodLife and Indiaglitz are considered generally not reliable sources according to the Indian cinema taskforce and Pinkvilla has a warning about avoiding celebrity gossip, which this source falls under, I believe. Furthermore one of our sources is youtube. While there is no blanket ban on youtube videos, as WP:YOUTUBE states, a video uploaded by a random person seemingly filmed on a phone that starts while the subject is already talking does not seem like a proper source.

• 2) Problems with understandability. Reading Break down at audio launch it is very difficult to understand what the conflict is. I do not believe "Audio launch" is a generally well known term outside of India and might need its own page or an explanation. The sentence "there were quite a few obstacles created by people who wanted to ensure it did not release." does not get properly elaborated on and stays as a vague accusation, something we cannot have on wikipedia. Further the sentence: "Gnanavel Raja has an agreement copy of their deal, while the other two do not have the same." adds nothing and seemingly only exists to sow doubt on the validity on their claims without being open/honest that there are doubts of validity.

• Under Conflict with D. Imman the first sentences: "In 2023, Tamil composer D. Imman publicly stated he would no longer collaborate with actor Sivakarthikeyan, noting that his betrayal significantly altered his life. Imman refrained from providing further details, citing the well-being of his children." are again simply vague accusations and do not have any place on Wikipedia, especially when nobody involved wants to tell what the so-called betrayal was. The rest of the paragraph is simply more information about seemingly false rumors. Furthermore the "recent press meeting" is no longer recent.

• 3) Problems with grammar: the sentence "...the general secretary of the Tamil Nadu Producers Council, has told a website..." Clearly should be "...had told the website". "Gnanavel Raja has an agreement copy of their deal, while the other two do not have the same." also makes no sense, it seemingly is supposed to say: "Gnanavel Raja has a copy of their deal, while the other two do not."

• 4) Problems with wording: The author of this section added emotional/sensationalist wording. "Imman handled this issue maturely..." and "He faced a similar agony...".

The section Break down at audio launch might be able to be turned into something interesting with heavy rewriting, I don't think the other section is worth keeping anyhow. Being accused of a vague "betrayal" and people making up their own theories does not seem like a Wikipedia-worthy controversy.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 20:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to be clear that the spelling and wording on its own would not have been enough for me to remove it, but it's more of a "and on top of the fundamental problems, it's also spelled and worded like shit."

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 20:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Being from the Netherlands, I understand that you might not have been exposed to or heard about this significant incident in Tamil Nadu, which sparked considerable debate on social media. You mentioned it being ‘also spelled and worded like shit.’ However, in reality, this is exactly what happened, and the details are not fabricated.

No one is cooking up stories here. I kindly request you to review the following articles carefully:

1. Indian Express

2. Zee News (You can use Chrome’s translation feature for better understanding.)

These sources, including The Indian Express and Zee News (zeenews.india.com), which is recognized as a reliable platform by the Indian cinema task force, detail the incident accurately.

So, I request you to kindly moderate your language when addressing this topic. Arjun2485 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Just because sources exist does not mean that the sources used are valid. The sources I mentioned should NOT be used in a biography of a living person (BLP). The fact I called it "Spelled and worded like shit" means that there are objective errors in grammar and that a person who doesn't already know about the situation (the _target audience of a Wikipedia page) has a hard time following what is going on.

The version as presented before my revert cannot be placed back, either it will have to be left out or rewritten. Seeing you are very adamant about this, it seems you could see if you have the time to get rid of the bad sources, get good sources in and make the section understandable to all readers.

I'm sorry if my wording caused offence, I hoped to make clear why I added point 3 and 4 but I might have been a bit rude.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 08:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

To users reverting sections of ‘Controversies’:

please provide sufficient sources to support your edits. It shows that you are super blinded by someone's heroism / fandom or whatever. Since you had too much hope on someone, now it’s hard for you to accept what they’ve done. Arjun2485 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

The review for this latest film amaran..should be more good. As an audience we didn't saw that he didn't match up the intensity in emotional scene..infact he was very good and definitely the movie had got 4/5 stars everywhere. And please also mention amaran was opposite sai pallavi. 2409:4085:9E33:D6C1:0:0:88A:3D02 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I request editor to make these changes. 2409:4085:9E33:D6C1:0:0:88A:3D02 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)