Talk:Printed Rainbow

Content removal

I would be very willing to know, that:--

• How this, which is the website of the film-producer, passes WP:RS, except for making very basic uncontroversial and non-disputed factual claims?
• during the period 18 May 2006 to 28 May 2006 hardly belongs to the lead.Why would any reader, coming to read about the film, give a damn about the run-time of a film-festival?
• How, It is one of the few independently made classic short films from India is not a mis-quoting of the source?
• Why the fuck, an encyclopedia cares, who the director dedicated the film to, unless that has been covered by other reliable-media and/or has some special significance?! We aren't a storehouse of useless trivia or a data-dump?
• Per our style-guideline, how does the acknowledgment section fits in the article? And, which other film good articles or featured articles, as to the category of the films, lists an acknowledgement section which (more than) adequately highlights it's non-necessity.
• How self-sourced--22 other international awards is not the perfect recipe for promo-spamming a film.I guess that you know that there exists many film-awards that are non-notable and hence, it's your onus to specifically mention and reliably source the important ones?
• If you want to insert critical reviews et al, they shall be directly sourced to the medium, in which it was published, rather than to the website of the producer, containing assorted praises.

Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Then I am very willing to explain, that:--

1. There are no controversial and disputed claims on that website. Why would a producer lie about his/her work?
2. The time span of that festival is necessary to be mentioned in the lead because it informs readers that the film was released in that exact time span. No proper release date is available for this film. May 2006 is incomplete date.
3. Did you really read that book written by Richa Dwivedi that I cited after the statement? It is mentioned there as such.
4. No reply for this. Incivil language.
5. That guideline is to be applied generally not imposed everywhere like you do. WP is not a sport. Rules are rules not always works here. Every article is unique in presentation and way the info is written in it.
6. I got names of some awards from those 22 awards but they are not notable, therefore I collectively wrote them as 22 other international awards. There is no promotional advertising here.
7. I didn't add that review again after you removed it.

Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

More people are editing Printed Rainbow article. Now I am too starting to WP:ADMIT that Acknowledgments section wasn't necessary at all. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 02:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50:: I reverted your edit back to revision by Winged Blades of Godric because official websites are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia and you need to provide reliable sources for it since Wikipedia policy requires us to have a verification of content we add. For more please see WP:RS, WP:Verifiability and what Wikipedia is not. You should also read WP:EDITWAR and be advised of WP:3RR. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• A part of your re-insertion(s) has been reverted by Deb, another by Ravensfire and your whole chunk by me and GSS.So, now, it is your and only your onus to establish a consensus to re-insert the information.Any further revert, in part or in whole will be greeted with a visit to WP:3RRN.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: & @GSS-1987: Why are you people removing citation of that book? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: Please see WP:RSSELF and WP:VIDEOREF and stop reverting edits. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Quote the exact part of the book that supports It is one of the few independently made classic short films from India.More precisely, where does the book mentions that it is a classic short film or that such films are scarce in India, which may explain the use of the qualifier few? ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Coming soon with more references. But provide your excuses here before any reverts so that I can make amendments. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In that case, please post your desired inclusions and/or changes over here, rather than directly at the article.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:  Done Okay, start! I'm waiting. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

How many times I have to repeat that It is one of the few independently made award winning animated short films from India is a pure-synthsesis, giving impressions of promoting the film-stuff.That reference supports nothing but the addition of a single word--award-winning, in the lead.

I tried maneuvering the interactive ref-link, provided by you but failed to get a glimpse of the subject.Can, you please be a more specific, as to accessing the desired target?!

Sorry, but this is a non-reliable fanzine, dedicated in promotion of art-films with questionable editorial integrity and independency, as is evident from their coverage.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the thing you find questionable there on taxidrivers. Provide a proper evidence before saying anything about any website. That was no original research, it is given in the book. There are only 5 entries in that book which makes them few. Not many animated films get awarded in India. Those statements are right.

Just one person can give me this much trouble then think what several others can do here. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

First, edit-warring is not a substitute to a t/p discourse and the onus of inclusion is solely on you.As to your queries:--

Not many animated films get awarded in India.--

Original research.How do you not know that the book just mentioned a few of those many art films that have won awards?!

What is the thing you find questionable there on taxidrivers.--

The about section writes:--

Always specializing in art cinema, Taxidrivers.it promotes the best of Italian and international cinema by participating in kermes such as Cannes , Berlinale , Venice Film Festival and other important film festivals where it produces dossiers and interviews with the most interesting directors of the moment.

which is typical PR speak.Also ,see reliability of interviews.

Just one person can give me this much trouble then think what several others can do here.

It's high time that you look at a mirror, rather than pointing fingers at others.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric

@Harshrathod50: Please try to understand that all information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source (see WP:VER and WP:RS) so please stop adding unreliable sources and be civil to other editors. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 19:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@GSS: I doubt this Godric's reviews and also it is just him who is saying that website is not verifiable. But I will prove that website is verfiable but just need some time. Civility? What is that? Is it some kind of alien? I also doubt your reviews too. Take this for instance. This deletion was overzealous. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: you are so funny with yours typical "argumentation" and I'm not letting you waste my time so don't ping me unless you want to have some policy based arguments. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)