User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 6

Dharmendra

Man you've been quiet this week. I've felt quite lonely!! It seems ages since I spoke to you. I;d rather have people to speak to regularly. Nobody much seems to be here. I've requested the block of several editors, I gave Universal hero the advice to obtain another license for kollywood films which hes done well in getting (although he isn't stating the link as he should be). Could you fix the filmography of Dharmendra. It needs urgent treatment. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes absolutely send for an A as soon as you can. I've also felt really bored all week on here. Theres only so much work I can do without speaking to somebody!!. I find this helps me work. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what I'm getting sick and tired of having to revert vandalism by unregistered users who keep coming along and removing a lot of text and images. Its worrying how many articles I have come across where vandalism hasn't been seen. I honestly think its about time that unregistered users were stopped from editing wikipedia and only entitled to if they keep an account. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I like the principle of an open encyclopedia I really think this would be of enormous benefit to the security of the site. This way it encourages people to create an account and contribute to wikipedia openly and actively if they register with the site. And if the vandals think oh I'll create an account to disrupt they can easily be identified and blocked and removed. While it wouldn't completely eliminate vandalism it would be a huge step forward I think as we can keep track or who has edited what and not be messed around with all these different IP addresses. I'm sure you know every bit as much as me that 95% of bad edits or vandalism that we all come across frustratingly is by anonymous users. I was shocked earlier to see how much the Richie Sambora article has downgraded terribly because of consistent attacks and decay. I think we should organize a campaign to make it compulsory to register with wikipedia and then make it available for anybody contribute. I honestly think it would improve the sites' overall reputation also. At the moment people and the general media think " oh absolutely anybody could have written this -why should I beleive it" ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you weren't going to propose Zinta for an A-class so I've done it for you. Then it will be worth making all these edits on it for an FA. It'll get there I promise ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S I found an image for Hema Sardesai. I had to crop it but it this correct? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm so happy I found the right image! What a great collaboration although 99% your work! Your words are so kind and they mean a lot to me friend. I have asked Warlord John Carter (who gave Mr Biggleworth an award) a respectable user if he could review it some time. It is beginning to look more and more like an FA every day thanks to your dedication to it. As for my edits, well you know I have a massive interest in a massive range of fields! - my editing history shows a huge range of fields. Theres only so much time to spend on certain things. Hopefully I can complete the films soon enough and start working on other areas of the encyclopedia more fully and perhaps go for another FA. American films is going well I've nearly done 1962 now. Wow there are some classics in there which are only stubs!! My best regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahid. Nah I should leave it out - it is a bit too much gossip. Remember it is now nearly 70kb over twice the recommended limit and people would probably ask you too cut it down rather than expand it for an FA. You couls mention she previously dated ..., then met ... but I shouldn't discuss the sleaze as you said! Best to leave it out - the article is only meant to highlight her career and life anyway. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC) I've now had a chance to read the kareena article. An improvement yes but it still has significant selective quotation issues which seem unbalanced. See Bollywood Dreamz talk page ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say every film needs box office details at all and I also didn't say to criticize her sharply at all. All I'd like to see is some more quotations or discussion of the films that didn;t do so well and for the real failures why they didn't. One reference of box office earnings in comparison to the top films of the year solidifies this statement rater than repeatedly saying it was a failure. The template as you said "didn't do very well at the box office but was a critical success is used too often. It needs at least one or two explanations in places. General content though I agree is GA standard ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I'd like to see the Preity Zinta article as a model for all Indian actor articles and for many others. If we could get all the articles on Indian film actots, directors and composers like Zinta things will start to be looking pretty fine indeed! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC) I have a quick requst. Can you stub Lilette Dubey its red linked on many articles and I'll upload the image ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Yes I redirected and added the infobox and image this is why. Yep you'd think it'd be quicker but it will take some time. There ought to be more people dedicated to reviewing articles for the purpose of promotion. There are wikiprojects for everything else. Even WikiProject GA didn't do a thing about Zinta. People work damn hard on these articles -you'd expect some coutsesy and quick response!!Never mind I'm sure I'll get sorted soon. Man I'm in my bot mode yesterday and today. I've been filling in some gaps on Indonesian cinema which is highly underdeveloped and must have generated twenty articles by now!! Check out my edits today and yesterday. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta plant some seeds! What I always find impressive about wikipedia is when it has many articles on a subject you'd never dream it would have anything on. I can imagine the day when the Preity Zinta article was stubbed by someone like Nirina Zubir. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dates

Hey Shahid! The articles that are posted on Rediff.com always have the date included in their link. For example, regarding the Women of Many Faces article, the link is "http://specials.rediff.com/movies/2007/mar/08sld1.htm". You can see that the article was published on March 8, 2007. This is the same with the Bollywood's Most Beautiful Actresses article, which has the link "http://inhome.rediff.com/movies/2004/mar/24sld1.htm". You can seen that it was published/written on March 24, 2004. As for the author of the latter, when you click on the link, you can see that the images were provided from Getty Images and the design was done by Uday, Kuckian, so this probably means that he designed as well as wrote the article. If someone else had written it, then they would've had the person's name mentioned over there. Hope this helps you!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 20:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid, I wanted to ask you something. I really respect you as an editor and you're the only editor that I am close to on Wikipedia. From what I can see, you're a very experience editor and I wanted to know your opinion on whether or not I should nominate Kareena Kapoor's article for a GA. Honestly, I don't want to nominate it right now, but after a week or two, I was thinking of nominating it. What do you think? Please give me your honest and truest opinion, as to what I should improve or change. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You very much for the suggestions. I really appreciate it! I've a few questions:
A) Regarding the criticisms, I don't know where to put it in. As you said before that this is just the beginning of her career and I was looking at expanding her breakthrough section. But after a successful year in 2001, she had a setback in 2002 and 2003. That year, only MDK and MPKDH were notable because they came from big banners.. Should I put criticisms for those two movies or some other movies she did from 2002-2003. I read somewhere that after her role in K3G, many directors began making Kapoor's character like that in all her films. Should I add that in?
B) Should I remove the thing mentioning about the MMS clip? Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which source? Do you mean the source that indicates that she was in a MMS Clip. If it is then the link is "http://indiafm.com/news/2006/01/05/6504/index.html" BTW although Shahid and Kareena are not dating, it says that they're on good terms. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O LOL, I don't. One of the reference I had for Kapoor's article indicated that but now the link is dead!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence that you told me to add although Shahid and Kareena are not dating. So indicate that they although they broke up they remained on good terms?? --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an old issue, I don't think that there are many articles on it now. I was thinking that we should just say, While Kapoor was dating Shahid, their relationship was in the news for a MMS clip, which showed them kissing... or something along that line. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 22:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, To avoid any more chaos, I think we should just remove it. What do you say? BTW why did you tell me to add although Shahid and Kareena are not dating to the article. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Shahid, the personal life section looks great. I think that the MMS clip should be left there as it gels really well with the rewrote section. Thanks for your help. BTW, as you recommended, I added Kapoor's quote regarding that Shahid was a good actor to show that they were on good terms after their break-up. Once again, thank you very much for you hard work! I plan to nominated it after a day or two after adding some criticims and some minor touches. Best Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 04:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shukriya dost. Bahut Bahut shukriya! LOL! Thanks for your advice. I really appreciate it!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 18:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid, in the lead of Kareena Kapoor, Blofeld put {fact} for this sentence, After that, Kapoor starred in several films which were less successful at the box office and she was received some criticism in that she was becoming typecast. Should a ref. be added to show that her following films failed to do well or that she recieved criticism for becoming a typecast actress. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's OMO?? --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 01:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I don't think Kareena was approached by Farah to be in the movie. Why, did you see her in the movie?? --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

What are you up to these days? I'm attempting to use the template of Preity Zinta to do Asin Thottumkal, the top heroine of the South and the one in Ghajini with Aamir Khan. Any good sources? Universal Hero 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any good websites or such......from the Bollywood industry......I checked Aamir Khans blog, there's not much bout her. Cos' Preity's has loads of key info Universal Hero 22:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously 100 percent, a main page entry for Zinta is surely in the beckoning! Universal Hero 09:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4th GA

is............Bommarillu, a delightful Telugu film... Universal Hero 13:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, I'm trying to make Unnale Unnale into a GA now - dun evrythin' but source it -lol! What are you up to? Universal Hero 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I'll try to help out The Eternal Diva soon, considering her father was a Tamil thespian! Universal Hero 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why isn't Shilpa Shetty a GA? The quality of the majority of Bollywood articles are tip top! Universal Hero 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up?

I just saw Laaga Chunari Mein Daag! What a fantastic movie? Did you watch it? I just couldn't help but come back on wikipedia. But I'm so busy that I don't think I'm going to be editing at all. How come you never touched Rani's page after that? You edited the page not out of interest but only because I was editing it? Anyway, you should work on it. There has been great new news. Talk to you some other time. Hope you're doing well. - shez_15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta A

Yes that is always an issue for the higher articles - shorter paragraphs and sentences are often frowned upon as they stop the article from flowing. I should try to phase out any shorter sentences into longer ones. The only problem with the intro is the part that she is one of the most prominent actresses in the industry. Really we should avoid info that is subject to debate but most people would agree that this is true. I should tr to reword this a little and add a reference and her popularlity in India, Also be careful not to refer to Bollywood as the iNdian film industry. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep OK. For me the best solution is to remove the problematic sentence entirely as later down in the intro it says she has estbalished at the top in INdian cinema anyway. This avoids repetition and any argument over its validity. I'm gonna take it out OK? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC) The best thing is to elaborate a little so by merging some loose paragraphs it appears not to discuss a different subject. How does this beginning sound to you:[reply]


Preity Zinta (Hindi: प्रीति ज़िंटा. Pronunciation: /priːt̪ɪ zɪɳʈaː/ born January 31, 1975)[1] is a two-time Filmfare Award winning Indian film actress who appears in Bollywood films. She is one of the most popular actresses in Hindi cinema today with her films earning a combined gross of approximately ....... since 1998 when she appeared in ."Top Actresses". BoxOfficeIndia.Com. Retrieved December 10, 2006.</

Here we can connect the second and first together ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ought to add another sentence or two at the bottom of the intro perhaps summarizing her concerts and humanitarian work. Remember to intro is supposed to summarize the content of the article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled it a bit ,ore but I feel we need one more strong sentence in the bottom paragraph to consolidate it. Actually I am using the FA Sankavit Ray and Abaas Kiarostami articles as a blue print for how to write a strong intro . ok? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look thats about five times I've tried to help you with ordering the early life section and you;ve reverted it each time. Why do you persist on moving the part about her father down ?. It doesn't make sense to discuss it once and then again further down. The first paragraph of early life discusses her father dying when she was thirteen and it makes 100% sense to merge the quote in with it. Do you want this promoted or what? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it a bit strnage that you have reverted edits by people also other than myself who are going to help get it promoted thats all. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your're going where? Fine if you are 100% sure that it is important to quote it between school and uni - I was just trying to improve the article stricture by avoid repetition and to provide information in the most coherent and concise way possible which I believed and still believe FA articles require. I don't think it is of huge importance but just trying to help you get a much deserved FA. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing gotta understand amigo is that I often tell it as it is -complete honesty, which can often be misinterpreted as anger or whatever. Often I may be focusing on improving something and may forget if I seem a little harsh. So don't think if I have any objections or questions at you that I have suddenly become annoyed at you. Quite the opposite - I think you are doing great - I think it is good to question certain things in articles if we can reach our goal afterwards. You will always be a friend while I am here so just remember that. Saludos!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bigglesworth's evil replacement. Now this purring little fella really looks the business doesn't he. Really evil! Meowwww!!

Hey that was completely not what I was thinking at all mate. Are you OK? You want Mr. Biggleworth to give you a hug? Unfortunately he was eliminated in the commons and replaced by his evil twin which has one blue eye and one brown eye!! Look you treat me and other users in an exemplary way and you always have done and probably always will and believe me there are hundreds of editors on here who could do with some primary lessons in manners from you. I have never not for one millsecond thought that anything you do would be in disrespect I want to make this clear. I was only trying to point the article - its not really all that important just trying to help as you requested. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No I didn't replace it. It was deleted from the commons unfortunately as it didn't have any source information from whoever uploaded it. Now I'm stuck with this evil thing rather than my cute old kitty!! Kiarostami is very much an artist, some of his films are deceptively simple but very clever indeed often with hidden meaning even in the sound and visual elements to it such as background scenery. I've seen Taste of Cherry, The Wind Will Carry Us and clips of Ten. The fact he is considered by Martin Scorsese (who I consider one of the best film directors in the world) today as "representing the highest artistry in cinema" shows his status. Have you seen Kundun? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I also consider Satyajit Ray as one of the finest of all time. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Bacchan looks a massive guy doesn't he. He looks around 6 ft 4 or 6 ft 5 - in fact he actually looks taller than me but it is probably because he is surrounded by much shorter people and is way above average height in India. Is he very popular with the older women in india or something? Is he like the Indian George Clooney or something (LOL!!) -all the middle aged women like him? Isn't he known as the King or something? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't the The Last Lear been released in India yet? Do they screen any Bollywood films in Melbourne? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah LOL!! I take it you don't find his wife beautiful? I vaguely remember uploading her image she didn;t look that bad . I can kind of see what the thing is about Amitabh -he looks like the kind of guy who is a big presence in a room almost like a King and I don't just mean physically. I imagine a lot of people in India look up to him and respect him greatly even older people. Yes I used to go to the cinema almost every week but these days DVDs are released so quickly I often wait and get them cheap on ebay and sell them off if I have finished with them. It actually works out cheaper than renting. Someday I hope to get hold of Sholay from 1975. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw the clips of Rekha yesterday with those two kids. Quite entertaining. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah LOL - when you said 155 I was thinking you were exagerrating her age as if she was an old hag or something!!. Ah I see major height difference. It was the same with my Grandad he was 6'3 around 190cm and my Grandma still living is only 4 ft 11 about 150 cm. Yes I saw both vlips she looked a lot better in the second ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I've found Hitlers long lost brother Siegfried Breuer. What was it with the Germans and Austrians and dodgy moustaches in the 30s and 40s! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC) i must admit out of the older Bollywood actresses I find Shabana Azmi more attractive than Rekha ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I had seen both videos didn't I - it was very 70s discoesque the second one. I don't find her all that attractive compared to some of the others thats all. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Actually on google imaging her she looks pretty hot ! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Wow she looks ten times better in those new clips. You should have provided me with the sexier ones before. She looks awesome in the second one also -I can't believe a woman of 50 is that hot!!! What film was the first one? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 08:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I am a little surprised by the sexuality of some of these films. judging by the overblown reaction to Richard Gere kissing Shilpa Shetty I thought India would have banned any film which evens shows people touching!!!! I thought they would frown upon anything like that. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked somebody elese to review it. I have also found two new images but you may feel they aren't needed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats four supports now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Whether it passes or not which I am 100% certain it will I am taking it to the next stage by requesting the league of copy editors check for grammar and spelling ready for the FA proposal. I;ve been planning this for a while ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I wasn't too sure about the images either no probs. Yes it certainly helps to have contacts with some of the best editors on here who have a mutual respect for each other. I've lost count of how many people I know!! That should be enough for now, I have at least thirty good editors I know to request when it is proposed for FA. It isn;t easy writing an article on a living actor and you;ve done very well indeed. With the copy editors on the case I hope we can pass A quickly and propose immediately for FA -then we can start working on another FA LOL Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not set in stone -its the same with FA as the turn out for each nomination can differ significantly. My feeling is that we already have enough clear support but I have requested one or two others to look at it. It may be some time before it is passed (you know how slow things are) but is certain I guarantee. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


P.S can you begin to sort out the filmo of Dharmendra thanks. Any idea which article you want to work on for a gA or FA next? My feeling would be Shilpa or Amitabh ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Or Rekha ! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC) You must admit it is shocking that with nearly 2.1 million artixles only 3,000 have reached GA. This is disgraceful!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good turn out. Everybody who I requested has now reviewed it and supported it. That 7 supports!! Hey I just came across Sy Kravitz. Can you believe that he was Lenny Kravitz 's father?!!! They got to look about as different as you can get ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Other work" sounds better, thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC) There isn't an image of her at the blog. Hey check out Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Not bad looking for a 54 year old. Most women that age in my country look like a wrinkled fat prune!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've requested it for A and hey presto it is now an A class!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...=

so very much for the kind words! --69.22.254.111 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AapKaSuroor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AapKaSuroor.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey there

Congratulations again on getting Zinta to GA! :)

Could you please have a look on Roshan's talk page, a discussion there about the new baby on the way (if at all) might help prevent an edit war.

And if possible, drop by on SRK's talk page too, theres a discussion there involving religion that would do better with more eyes on it.

Thanks,xC | ☎ 16:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JWM

Hey Shahid, I did see JWM. I saw it on Oct 28. I totally agree with you! There's only one word that can describe the film, "Fantabulous". LOL. I wasn't expecting much from the movie but it turned out to be an excellent movie with wonderful performances by both Shahid and Kareena at their best. No wonder, critics have been raving about the film and it's all set to be a HIT!! It's a pity that just when their chemistry is showing so much on screen, they've decided to part ways. BTW, which one are you going to see first, Saawariya or Om Shanti Om? Mine would definitely be the former.. I love movies made by Sanjay Leela Bhansali. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 12:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preity

The article's looking as great as ever but I question the use of a See Also section - it's got nothing directly to do withe article. It links to 2 shabby pages. Just a thot' Happy editing :) Universal Hero 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It hasn't Universal Hero 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't got much time, tests around the corner et all. It's especially hard, South Indian actors tend to have poor websites and small information to extract from. Universal Hero 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wasting no time on this. I am using the significant turn out at the A-class review as a form of peer review and have therefore already nominated it for an FA. Due to the very long FA process proposing it now is a very good idea and if anybody has any minor quabbles (perhaps shortening it a little and minor copy edits) along the way then this can be sorted and crossed out. The article actually looks like an FA now is all virtually all the way there except in status. The FA has begun at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've invited 100 or so editors I know to participate in the FA. So far already 3 supports. I have adjusted the first sentences to avoid POV issues and have siad according to the Indian Box Office to give a professional fact that she is one of the most popular OK? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but saying she is one of the most popular actresses in the industry can be seen as POV if you don;t mention according to whom. It has to be based clearly on fact and if you don't mention the at the Box Office people may question this statement ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We must try to avoid broad statements like this as much as possible. I also adjusted a broad statement further down which implies that "everybody" feels that way. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But normally you'd think popularity would reflect in box office earnings ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have a feeling that Bollywood blog don't own that image. Either way we could properly have a few more screenshots if the rationale is given - the Angelina article has loads of them ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLease listen to my words. I said yes the image may not be owned by Bollywood blog but what I am saying is we may actually be able to have one or two more screenshots of her earlier career which are the most important also -see Angelina Jolie which is FA - this has three screenshots. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I googled it and found that image on many sites - it is a promotional image -most likely not owned by the blog. This is why I changed it to promo photo to be safe. Using Angelina's article as an example I think we could legally have one or two screenshots of Zinta -the pinnacles of her career. Perhaps some images from 2001 or 2003? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. Wikipedia has strict policies on images -particularly for FA articles. If the use of the limited images in the article for Angelina Jolie were a problem believe me that they would have been removed prior to it being an FA. If a rationale is given we'll see if anybody says anything ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm very happy with them and the article now. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kal Ho Naa Ho is pretty notable if it earned her forst Filmfare Best Actress award ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Whats the matter with it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I;m with you. The film is a tear jearker so such an image is more appropriate cool. I was about to switch it but you are too quick ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep thats fine - wow she looks so young in her first film. With the plats she looks more like 14 or 15!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats nice -colourful good find!! OK? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 7 supports already - most FA articles don't even get that level of response in a week!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it and i am very disappointed in his response. Asking for him to leave his view and comments in his own time is not exactly asking for him to directly support it. Don't worry this happened last time with the Abbas srticle and several admin stated quite clearly that there is nothing wrong with making people aware of the nomination.Anybody with a brain can see I didn't directly ask him to support the article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I must have got him mixed with somebody else. Judging by his talk page he reacts to most of his message in a conflicting way -its pretty clear he doesn't have any experiece in wikipedia. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I contacted a variety of different users some of which work across different fields to try to get a neutral turn out . Anybody would think I only asked people at WikiProject India "Please support my article". ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I've got a new project on the go which I will work at gradually over the next few months. I am compiling the sources together at User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Cambodia and have just stubbed Deforestation in Cambodia -a serious issue which remarkably isn't covered while we have articles on the Teletubbies. Its time I wrote an entire full encyclopedia article myself. It looks promising doesn't it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it will be a beast of an article but an example of the thousands of important articles that are missing that Jimbo talks about. Shockingly we don't even have a real article on Wildlife of Brazil!! I would like to see the Asha Bhosle article now begin to develop - I'd be willing to help a bit - as she is an icon of India. For me this has a lot of potential - perhaps you could begin improving citations? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Shahid on Zinta's article recently being promoted to an A-class status. All the best in taking it to a FA status. According to me it's already a FA. I plan to read and support the article in taking it to a FA status tomorrow. Hope you don't mind!! I am currently busy with university and just came on Wikipedia for a while to revert some vandalisms. BTW I saw in Zinta's history that you said that she didn't act in Telugu movies. But aren't Premante Idera and Raja Kumarudu telugu movies? Dil Se was only dubbed in Tamil, so that can't be counted as a Tamil movie. Anyways I wish you all the best once again on Zinta's article. Hope your wish comes true!! Best Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to ask you something. I saw that images from KHNH and KK are on Preity's pages. Does that mean we're allowed to use them. I remember Yamla removed them from Kapoor's page but I just wanted to go through it with you. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That's why I changed it to Telugu. Shahid, do you think it would be better to put an image of Kareena from Omkara, Dev or Jab We Met. I don't know which one. Because the first two brought her critical acclaim, nominations for Best Actress and two Best Actress (Critics} awards. On the other hand JWM brought her critical acclaim along with commercial success and I am pretty sure that she will get a nomination for Best Actress. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everything and letting me know that you can only use three images. Even though Madhuri Dixit is making her comeback with Aaja Nachle, I don't know why but I strongly feel that Kareena is going to win it too. LOL. If Dixit gives a good performance like Kajol did in Fanna, then it might be like last year with Dixit taking the Filmfare Best Actress Award. BTW, out of these four, which one should I put: Refugee, K3G, Chameli, Omkara. It's hard to decide. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I forgot about Sonam Kapoor. She looks very very promising, more promising than Deepika Padukone in my opinion. LOL. Star Screen Awards is my favorite award ceremony in India. It's never biased. It always gives it to the person that deserves it. For e.g. Kareena for Omkara over Kajol for Fanaa. Filmfare is biased. So Dixit might win it for her comeback. Let's wait until we see Dixit's and Sonam's performances then I can decide. But so far I think that she is going to win it. I didn't see Laaga yet.. people say it sucks!! LOL! I thought that it would be a turning point for Mukerji than all the movies she has been doing lately. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I was planning to watch Laaga this weekend but judging by what you're saying I probably might not. I rather watch Bhool Bhulaiya. I didn't get a chance to watch Tabu in "The Namesake" but I do plan to. I really hope and pray to God that she wins the Oscar. If she does, it would be a really big accomplishment for her as well as the Indian film industry. I think she has accomplished much more, in terms of her performance than Aishwarya Rai has. Rai is only getting offers from Hollywood due to her beauty. No doubts on that. I think that Tabu might get a nomination but due to a more popular Hollywood actress that is also nominated, might win over her. I feel that Academy Awards are sort of biased. Great films like Mother India and even Laagan never won it. I know "The Namesake" is a Hollywood film, but I feel that many people think of the film has a Bollywood movie. Well let's hope and pray. What do you think? Will she win? P.S. I can't wait to watch Saawariya. Looks like a very good love story. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 03:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COme on mate what on earth is there to be sad about? So far we've had 19 !!!! supports and copye diting can and will be done quite easily. You always get people at FA's who strongly oppose at even the slightest of things such as an extra comma. I'm afraid you get some very prententious people who turn up at FA's who'll find every reason to stop it -why do you think Casino Royale took four months to pass? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid I could have been 99% sure who the person was before I even looked. I was almost certain when you said strong oppose that it was Sandy Georgia. Well what a surprise that is!! Yeah right (scoff scoff. This user yes quite frankly is a nightmare for FA's -she opposes nearly every article she comes across trust me. So don't think because she strongly opposed Zinta the article is bad. Sandy Georgia was precisely the reason Casino Royale took so long to pass along with tens perhaps even hundreds of other FA's/ . She has a reputation of strongly opposing great articles well -seemingly just for the sake of it . She appears to get some kind of orgasm from delibrately opposing every article she comes across but I don't know if standards so high are a good thing or not. Some times it makes things impossible but it can also ensure that FA are in a super class of there own. She's a predator posing as a wikipedian!! (from Fight Club (film) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we would have got support from seasoned administrators like User:Darwinek and User:Anas if the article was all that bad. Perhaps in places it needs a rewrite and some of the positive comments toning down a little but it is nearly there. Anyway an FA shouldn't be seen as the be and end all of everything. Compared to most articles and stubs on wikipedia the article is superb but there are always those who expect absolute perfection for FA's and it is indeed a gruelling process. Why do you think I don't spend much time on promoting articles to FA? It takes an enromous amount of effort to correct trivialities that some are opposed to and it is often a process that even I am not willing take when there are so many stub and start class articles that require major development. However as I said I am glad to try to help see this all the way and to work with you on this but I wouldn't be surprised if this went into 2008 ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've done some major copy editing today. The article is no where near needing the major copy edit that was stated by Sandy but I have made tons of edits. I have got as far as the beginning of controveries - the part that needs most attention I think because of short sentencing - I'll improve it later. One thing that has been brought to my attention is that throughout the entire film career section there is only one real quote of a negative review of her film. Are you saying that all of her films up to 2007 received completely positive reviews. Like I suggested to Bollywood Dreamz I feel you need to introduce a counter argument to several of the films you know of where she received more mixed reviews and notable negative ones even if the response was generally positive. This for me would consolidate the article and sort out any POV issues and take away any possibility that the article has selectively only focused on positive quotes acting in Zinta's interest. If you could find some negative quotes to be installed next to some of the more major comments this would be a major bomus I think. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you busy or are you sleeping today?? !! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I hope you aren't offended by my editing today. We now need to cut down the personal and controversial section now so it flows and once copy edited and cut using the best words possible I promise it will be looking better and not untidy. Trust me on this one - in my experiemce four sub sections and a short personal life section makes it a target for criticism whereas if it is a fully written concise and consolidated main section written coherently in the most clear way possible and with adequate referencing it is more likely to pass. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man this has had some major change today!!!! Sorry!! I rarely get the chance to concentrate on something and hadn't really edited it fully before -I;ve moved defamtion to media seems to make sense now. If you could introduce 1 or 2 negative quotes in relation to her career to go alongside the positive or take one of two positive successive quotes now I strongly believe this is just about up to FA now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd suggest now is you check all the references for reliability and ensure that they are all professional sources and have no dead links. I know you usually do an excellent job in removing any shoddy references and addind decent ones. Hope you are feeling spiffing!!! Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem Shahid! I am always ready to help you with whatever you need help with. I truly truly feel that you and Blofeld have improved Zinta's article by leaps and bounds. You've my deepest wishes and regards. All the best with Zinta's article. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am well happy with how this has developed. Even if it never reached FA it is a primary example of an article for all other Indian actor and general actor articles to aspire to. Are you going to find any negative quotes though? All it needs now is one or two and referencing checked I think ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I know - she does appear to have generally very good reviews. I would pass it myself for an FA now if I could, but I am thinking about what several editors such as Mr Two Parts Oxygen (User:02) and Tony said about POV and to present it completely in a NPOV. I guess we gotta convince them that there aren't any real negative quotes to be added and she has by fact been a major success. To be the most commercially successful actress in a country of over 1 billion is enormous. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh by the way I was flicking through TV the other night and on BBC 1 at around 11pm guess who was on? It was a documentary on Amitabh Bacchan and as I turned it on it was a clip of him from the 1970s. The guy from The Kumars Sanjeev Bhaskar was on there - a British Indian discussing his huge rulership over Indian cinema and how he almost died from an intestinal wound and how the country prayed for him and offered to sacrifice their own limbs to save him. Quite moving. Then they said about him returning to acting after presenting the Indian who wants to be a millionaire which the Indian press said would ruin his career but did quite the oppositie. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Basically it was discussing how somebody who won something like star of the 20th century or something could be so relatively unheard of in the west ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything. No problem, as I am really busy these days with university. After my exams are done, I plan to nominate it for a GA. On top of that, I really want to improve the pages of Karisma Kapoor, Kajol and Rani Mukerji. There's not really anyone that is currently working on those articles. I plan to work on them as soon as Kapoor reaches a GA. I would appreciate it if you decided to help me with those three actresses as well. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah Coolie was the film -released the year I was born!! I think I'll add a poster to it and try to find a screenshot of the frozen image used in the film of the actual rupture ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks -you see what is required. That means a lot that you can appreciate my alterations - fingers crossed the opposers will see the latest developments but you really had great content there anyway. It reminds me of when I used to help my friends in school write their essays and get paid for it!! If they got an A I would get a tenner and if an A* twenty quid!!! At the time I didn't care I wanted the money!!! I remember some of the tough kids at school - you know the sort of kids who would normally try to kick the hell out of you (like Image:VJones.jpg LOL!!) coming up to me with respect and asking for help and trying to give me bribes so they wouldn't fail!. School was a laugh!! Thanks all the best it is always a pleasure working and speaking with you. I am privelaged to have people like you to discuss things with on here. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here's an example of the citation issues that need to be addressed: "Actresses Filmographies". Retrieved July 14, 2007. No publisher is identified, and when you click on the link and then click on "Home" to try to find authorship of this website, you get a dead link. You could fix this by rmeoving the link perhaps and stating the publisher and original source ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian cinema collaboration of the fortnight

I think it may be a good idea like what I have done with the James Bond group to work on an actor or film in a two week or monthly period and aim at getting it up to GA standard. I succeeded in getting about 7 GA's in just a few weeks. Several of us could collaborate on a specific article every two weeks with the aim of getting a start or B class article to GA status which can be done quite easily. I believe the INdian cinema group could set an example for othhers to follow by attempting to win a GA every two weeks for an article on an actor or film. I think we should work on the greats first. Amitabh Bachchan and Rekha. -Hey I fixed some of the images and added a superb shot of them from 1981 - could you imagine the eyes on the kid if they were together!!! What do you think? Whilst we can still all aim at improving stub class Indian cinema articles I think it was also ptovide more focus for the group to work on a given article and collaborate. 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Ok

Heh, I've had something like that happen. Anyway, I check the person before setting any warnings and such so no worries about any mistakes by me. All's clear as can be. MacroDaemon 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello

Hello, Shahid, yeah, well, these days I'm kinda frustrated. Whenever I venture out to slay the ugly beast that's vandalism, Blofeld, Dreamz, you, Universal Hero or one of the others are so incredibly fast! :) Anywayz, I only just noticed what kind of debate is going on on Preity's article considering her nomination for "featured". I think some of the other editors have a slight tendency towards unpoliteness. If you talk about improvements, kindly point them out, not just mention that somewhere, anywhere, there might be some. I was out to improve some of the stuff on Preity's page, however currently, SandyGeorgia seems to work on it. When she's gone and something's left to do, I'll make my presence felt, so don't you worry. Wish that User:Zora was here, though. I really appreciate your hard work. Ever thought of becoming admin? Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes Featured article candidates tend to attract unpolite users who think it is a playground for attacks and to try to prevent it- it is a nasty business admin and FA stuff -this Plum is why I avoid adminship and the "government regime" on wikipedia. I would rather work at the book so to speak rather than pussyfooting around other users who I haven't got the time of day for. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2x Re: Hello

Hello, Shahid,
I thought about applying for an admin, but I think I'll first try to get ~5000 to 6000 mainspace edits (they are kinda picky about that) and I still have much to learn. Most recent example: What do you do when you think an User's mainpage is unacceptable? That kind of stuff. Yet, I think you could do it, too, maybe,. I'm extremely impressed with your argumentation over at Preity Zinta's discussion for "featured" (I'm currently catching up with everything) - *and*, compared to me, you have the major advantage of being an native speaker. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shahid,
thanks, but - I just have a very good dictionary: [1] ;) I see you're Jewish. I didn't know there is a Jewish community in India - and maybe, I don't get it, but if English isn't your native tongue, it's Hindi? Life in Germany is good - today, I met a group of Indians in the train and they were speaking Telugu (I think). I wasn't able to understand a single word, but the language itself has such a nice, well, ring to it and it's really nice just to listen to it. Anyway, since I'm living in Southern Germany, the weather is quite nice, compared to the cold, wet Northern regions. If you have left India in 2006, where are you currently living? Do you like it there? And how's the weather? ;) Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shahid,
wow, you're living in Australia! Lots of spiders, or so I've heard. My cousin is currently there with her family. I really understand that you miss your homeland - Australia must be very different. I get homesick quite easily, too. And having lived in Mumbai and Kolkatta - I heard and read so much about these two cities; must've been really hard. I'm trying to learn Hindi, but I still cannot read it, however: "Teera Bharat Mahaan". :) I hope my grammar and everything are correct.
I'm wondering: considering you living in Australia, do you like Salaam | Namaste or do you hate it? ;) And did you see Shahrukh Khan when he was filming for "Chak De! India"?
In Germany, as you can imagine, Israel and Jewish culture and religion are a very big issue considering what happend about sixty years ago. Whenever a German head of state or a minister visits Israel or a Jewish community, the newspapers and the media are full of it and everyone hopes that the German representative will do a good job.
Anyway, I have to go to bed now. It's almost four o'clock (in the night!) and I have to get up early, tomorrow. I wish you a great day and best wishes and regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 02:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiranjeevi's table

Hello, Shahid, first of all: lots of Indian Southern actors have really "interesting" filmography. Ajith Kumar's filmography is the next I'll do. About the manual of style: You're right. It says:

  • from oldest to newest. Chiranjeevi's is the other way.
  • Title (year), role - notes Check. Yep, should do.

Besides that, it looks okay to me. What do you think? Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 02:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

refs

Blood82Addition to 6columnist quote

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the 3RR. Spartaz Humbug! 10:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid I don't why you've been blocked I'll look at the nomination in a minute. I usually sleep at 11-12 PM this is when I go to bed (normal time) this is why I wasn't here. All I can say is try to keep calm and don't take things personally remember we have 20 supports. Any reference issues can and will be sorted. Featured candidates require an immense amount of patience and owrk with people who'll try to stop it to we gotta try to work at accomplishing it. Now I don't know why this Tony has turned and I don't know if he has any personal issues but remember we have several admin supports so the article cannot be all that bad. Try to keep calm -it can be difficult I know when people try to make the article look shoddy. The best advice I can offer is to check all the references as I said and if applicable replace with the most professional possible ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so offended... I definitely think to leave Wikipedia. But I would also like to replace references. Shahid • Talk2me 10:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree FA's are a nasty business and at times you indeed question whether it is worth it -this is why I try to avoid councils whether it is adminship or debates. Remember that anybody visiting the article in general is likely to be impressed by a detailed well written article on an INdian actress and think it is an excellent component of the encylcopedia. You should remain proud of how it has developed and remember that we are winning 20-3. You seem to forget this. All the "major problems" identified are trivial whether it is an extra comma, or reference or word here and there and can be corrected very easily even in seconds. I guarantee the article now doesn't need a major copy edit but perhaps one or two minor changes which the fussy ones can adjust if they want to. I mean somebody cited the link to Zinta's college as a flaw - why coulnd't they just have added (Delhi) -two seconds it would have taken but some appear to delibrately antagonize people and mention this as a reason to "strongly" oppose. Now quite frankly I've had enough of Zinta and the FA for the time being -for today anyway-I've asked anybody who opposes to help fix what they see is a problem and I'll check it again tomorrow. Also if you are citing websites with seemingly funny names like Santabanta (yes that was uncivil to say it was a joke) I'd recommend stating the writer and Times of India. Good luck with the referencing and try to remember that 20 people support this which is often greater than many FA nominations particularly at an early stage ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes "Unusually for Indian cinema standards, her debut role was a full 20 minutes long2 - I think I must have misinterpreted what was written there before which implied this was unusual. I guess I'm not Indian and don't know about debut Indian roles (why would I?) but I bet I still know a lot more about Indian cinema that most people in the west who have never heard of Zinta or Amitabh and only know Shilpa Shetty!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I'll collect reliable sources and add them here. Tomorrow I'll replace them:[reply]

What? I'm blocked Blofeld. Shahid • Talk2me 11:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I see "You have been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the 3RR". User:Spartaz Humbug. i could ask for you to be unblocked but you'll probably have to wait. I can't see that you did anything that justified blocking you - you should have received a warning first. It is very difficult to keep calm when people are strongly opposing and seeming to gang up on issues which are clearly not a major problem. I'll ask ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow the behaviour of that individual is unacceptable. Clearly he is targetting you -see Amitabh Bachchan now. Ouch! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he will ruin all of our pages if we don't take care of it. They were to coming against me. Each of them made 2 edits so I couldn't help but revert. It's unfair. boxofficeindia is used in Lage Raho Munnabhai, an FA. So how can it be unreliable when it is actually used in a page which was featured in "Today's featured article". Bollivista.com is also used there. They other user who opposed intendt to remove Planet Bollywood, when it is actually one of the most active review articles for Indian films on the net, apart from indiaFM.com. They just decide that it is unreliable just for their own will just becayuse they think so. Apunkachoice is also reliable. I easily can remove this SantaBanta and bollyspice.com but there are limits to everything. It's not fair. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 12:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came here following to see about a request to unblock you on my Talk by Sir B. I'm very disappointed by what I find. Your attitude seems to be that you were justifed in edit warring because two other editors disagreed with you. That's not very encouraging and I also see no evidence of contrition or assurances that you will not going out and do it again. I'm not going to unblock. A warning on the 3RR is not required for an experienced editor and your performance at FAC this morning was far from edifying and had I seen that before I blocked you I may well have added some extra for that. If you want to be unblocked try the {{unblock|your reason here}} template but I'm not going to do it after this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're reading this. Blofeld asked to unblock me just because he really knows what the problem is and he knows that I'm right. What did I do on the FAC page? Follow the history diffs please. This user removed my comments. I'll be honest, I did know and I am aware of the WP:3RR rule. I've even warned some users several times back in time.
We had a big deal of a problem on the Shahrukh Khan with this user. He had removed almost every possible reference claiming it's non-RS. How does he know? Where is his proof to that? Explanations (why this or another source is considred to be unreliable)? He even informed us that he will blank the page if reliable references are not found. Many of the sources are used in high quality articles, including FAs, like Lage Raho Munnabhai. So I strongly feel he is biased. He judges every reference's status per its name, if it sounds to be good or not. After having this tiff with him, he wikistalked me to the Preity Zinta article, which is, as you know, an FAC. He added his drastic comment (and both of us know why the comment is so drastic (strongest possible oppose)) with the reason to it being clear and far not only non-Rs. In fact most of the references are reliable, but some racists and POV pushers think they are not because the word Bollywood is there, and therefore, makes it an unreliable site.
I don't regret doing anything I've done. I protected my, and other users', hard work and even discussed it on the article and asked the same questions regarding the WP:RS issues as I asked you on the article talk page, but I received no normal and direct response. I think these things must be factual. I don't want to be unblocked. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK just trying to help you. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what happened here? Am I reading correctly that Shahid was blocked because of restoring comments that were deleted from the FAC? Or is there something else? I haven't checked the FAC yet. Shahid, I was just coming here to reply to an earlier query on my talk page, when I saw this mess. What I came here to say was that I realized that one of my earlier responses to you was not clear; yes, as you edit to correct my inline comments on the article, please feel free to remove my inline comments. I only leave them there as a note of things that should be clarified, and it's OK to remove them as you address them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out a few things here again, some of which were already raised by Shahid earlier -

  • User:Sarvagnya threw out weeks (months?) of work by several editors to reference article Shahrukh Khan. Without any prior justification or at the very minimum, some sort of dialogue on the talk page, such drastic cuts seem to be a very aggressive.
  • Same user also removed a table of awards from the same article, saying it was redundant. An identical table (in terms of content, colour, and formatting) can found on the featured article Jolie. So the question is, is said user making zir own rules?
  • Same user also attacked Amitabh Bachchan's page soon after. If you intend to launch a campaign against poor sources, start with one article, finish work with that and using that as a precedent you can make some progress elsewhere. But just going after any article you can find to throw out its sources... is that correct?
  • Lets say that the user is doing the right thing by trying to throw out these refs and replacing them with {{fact}} tags. Apparently the user hasn't seen the same sites being used as refs in the featured article Lage Raho Munnabhai. Perhaps it might be better for said user to read up a bit before starting edit wars?

Now from whatever little bit I understand, Shahid tried to protect the articles that he, alongwith several other editors, have worked on for so many days. To me, it seems understandable that he reacted the way he did to the articles being chopped up. Taking the above four points into consideration, and seeing that User:Sarvagnya did not even try to talk to User:Shshshsh on his talk page or have a decent dialogue on any article talk page, I think its wrong whats happening to Shshshsh here.

xC | ☎ 17:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks xC, I really appreciate you for your help. It's more important than any other problem for me. I'm actually not upset. I was defending pages I've worked on. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're always welcome. I've tried to address some more concerns of editors. Two more lists came up on FAC. I'd like to continue with this right now, but I'm exhausted and gotta catch some sleep now. Hang in there and don't let them get to you,xC | ☎ 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words and the help on Zinta's article. I used my sister's computer and changed some things under her IP address.
  • I restored some things which were removed, and are very important to the article. Blofeld and myself have worked very hard on it, especially on the early life section.
  • In the lead, I strongly disagree with Gnenapati's words. He says POV POV, but there are actually references for everything.
  • The lead is here to summarize the whole article. Not everything which is written there must be referenced because it is acrually very well referenced in the artcle itself and in the body text.
  • We can change demonstrate ---> show or whatever but not more that that. It was actually accepted by all the users except for the above mentioned user.
  • Apart from that, the fact that she is a humanitarian is featured in the section "Humanitarian work". That's why it appears in the lead, to mention that.
  • For the claim in the lead that was removed by another user saying that it needs a more reliable source, I've added an article from TOI.
  • I have removed MANY unreliable sources and provided reliable ones. *I've addressed some of the comments of the FAC, but didn't add the so awaited  Done.
  • Well I have much more to do so I will make it once my account is unblocked.

Block extended

I understand that you used your sister's PC to edit Wikipedia as an anon ip while your block was extant. This is an unacceptable violation and your block has been reset to 72 hours from this point. I am willing to reduce the length and/or commute the block but before I do this I need you to confirm that you will behave yourself from this point forward. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me. I have never violated Wikipedia, I have never vandalized. I didn't know that this is not permitted. If I had known this, I wouldn't have written that here. I was honest enough to say that, and it is the proof that I wasn't aware of this. I wanted to improve the article. Please unblock me or commute the block. I have much to do here on Wikipedia. And I promise to behave well, I didn't know about that, and regarding this violation I haven't received any warning. It is not fair. Please help. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 08:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have unblocked. Spartaz Humbug! 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Shshshsh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please forgive me. I have never violated Wikipedia, I have never vandalized. Many users here commented that my initial block was unfair and even turned to the administrator who blocked me and asked him to unblock me. I couldn't edit, that's why I used my sister's computer. I didn't know that this is not permitted. If I had known this, I wouldn't have written that here and admitted it at all. I was honest and innocent enough to mention that on my talk page, and it is the proof that I wasn't aware of this being not permitted. I wanted to improve the article. I have never vandalized pages, and used another PC for the first time just to improve. I have never, really never edited with my IP address even to edit pages. This is my first mistake, so how can you be so unfair? Please unblock me. I have much to do here on Wikipedia. My watchlist indicates a load of vandalism which needs to be reverted. And I promise to behave well, and never violate the WP:3RR rule, and no other rules of course. I didn't know about that, and regarding this violation I haven't received any warning. It is not fair. Thet's just so insulting to be convicted after so much of work here, for only one mistake which was pulled by another one which is a misunderstanding. Best regards

Decline reason:

From the tone of your request, I assumed you had been indefinitely blocked. You have not; your block has merely been extended 72 hours. You have learned, if you didn't previously know, that you are not permitted to edit when you are blocked, and Wikipedia will still be here for you when your block expires. Relax. Use the time to cool off a little. Read a book, watch a movie, spend time with your family, and you will be welcome to make positive contributions when your block expires. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blofeld

Blofeld, Xcentaur, Hero, Rahul or whoever sees that. If you see that, please inform some active administrator of this. Please do something. I was improving the article and look what I get in demand. That's a shame, how can Wikipedia be so unfair towards me? It's so insulting. Please inform someone. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 10:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhh - a perfect example of a sticky situation made ten times worse. Shahid it was only a 24 hour block and you only had a few hours to go. Ahh -you know that if you are under a block you are watched like a hawk for any possible avoidance of it. Now its been expanded to 72 hours. I can't fight your cause in this but I feel the siutation has been blown out of proportion unnecessarily. A nasty situation. Just take the time to browse wikipedia and take a breather. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Blofeld inform User:Yamla or someone else maybe User:Utcursch please. Shahid • Talk2me 13:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody helps me, I'll just leave this project forever. I won't tolerate such an attitude towards me. I haven't done nothing which is terrible or unforgivable. It is just unfair. Shahid • Talk2me 13:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid the situation has become blown way out of proportion I agree but you have to understand that there are always strict rules over blocking and if you appear to have violated any temporary ban they will crack down on you hard as they feel their efforts at control are being thwarted. I don' think its right that you have been blocked for 72 hours like a vandal partiularly as you have done much good and were attempting to improve it but surely you could have waited another 6-8 hours to be unblocked? If apparently it was you who used your sisters' computer I certainly wouldn't have spoken to anyone!!! Man. Look I've asked Yamla and Riana for their views but I don't know if anybody can do anything. But you must admit you do appear come up with threats when facing difficulty which is understandable such as "leaving wikipedia for good if you aren't unblocked" but often they are not received very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threating anybody. Wikipedia won't be closed if I leave. That's just a personal view of mine. I'm dissapointed. I was one of those who've created articles, warned anons, reverted vandalism, and now I'm blocked because of a little misunderstanding. I don't find it logical or respectful, this kind of attitude that administrators give to Wikipedia's users who have always been helping and even were blocked for it, is ugly to me. Shahid • Talk2me 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid everybody is grateful for the work you have put into wikipedia and even blocking vandlaism yourself- even if most people don't show it. The admin who blocked you also are not disputing your excellent contributions to Indian cinema on wikipedia. What wikipedia has a strong policy on is when people appear to be threatening others or using a heated tone which they see as disruptive, which in this case I believe has been misinterpreted -I felt your intial reaction was within accpetability and that they didn't see both sides -. Now I don't see anything wrong with what happened initially but I strongly recommend you try to contain yourself in a difficult situation it doesn't help adminstrators change. If they see you are calm and that it has blown over they will be more likely to accept you back in as soon as possible. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have been unblocked now. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK no probs but please try to remain as calm as possible if encountering trouble again -it can be very difficult I know. Adios ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it sucks I know and you feel powerless to do anything. it isn't pleasant I know and not something you want to experience again because of a misunderstanding. Regards ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 14:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm aiming to get most of the Hong Kong films onto wikipedia. Have you seen any Hong Kong movies with Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan? I'm going to add all the titles ti the lists and start the articles. I've just started The Twelve Gold Medallions but have alook at the trailer on youtube externally linked. I love 1970s martial arts films. Hong Kong films have such a depth of character ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 16:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC) They've got such charatcer particularly the Hong Kong films of the 70s and 80s films - some of the coolest films I've ever seen. Aside from the Hollywood golden era I realised that many of the modern action or whatever films I have enjoyed the most have often had oriental or Indian themes to them or were filmed in these locations or had Asian character actors in them. I'm a big fan of Chow Yun Fat -a terrific actor. Some of the films that have starred Danny Denzongpa have been terrific also. I wish I had th chance to watch many Bollywood films fully in english ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 16:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That shower scene was steaming wasn't it!!! Was that Akshay in the 1990s? He seems to look different today. I wish there was some way I could buy a few Bollywood classics which have english subtitles. I tried to get hold of Sholay but it is in Hindi and would cost about £18 to ship it from Mumbai. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just thought I might have been bothering you when I can see you are doing some Zinta editing. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Non-RS sources

Hello. I really have to request you to stop edit warring with those sources. Sources for Bollywood articles are really easy to find and you dont have to use non-rs sources like you do now. And yes, all those sources you use are non-RS until and unless you can prove them to be otherwise. The only way to prove that a source is RS is to show that the ones behind the source are acknowledged(not self-styled) experts in the field. If you can establish that, there wouldnt be any problem with your sources. But the onus is on you to do that. Thanks. Sarvagnya 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you and blofeld need to recognize that I am not doing this out of spite. I had edited Shahrukh Khan in the past, so it showed up on my watchlist coupled of days back. I went there and saw that all the non-RS sources I had removed some weeks back had been brought back. Then I checked a couple of other bollywood articles and saw that the same sources were being used all over the place. I went to WT:INB to leave a message to the community about this. There I saw that Zinta was in FAC. From there I came to Zinta and was shocked that an article with so many non-RS sources could be in FAC. Between all this you had started edit warring with me and got blocked soon after. Blofeld thought I was stalking you when I landed on Zinta... infact, I was led to Zinta by Blofeld's own post on WT:INB. Sarvagnya 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Cough*

I'm not stalking but I do usually keep an eye on users I have unblocked early to help them avoid getting themselves into more trouble - especially when we have an obviously good faith user such as yourself who easily gets frustrated. I just thought I should ask you to step back a bit on this discussion about sources and just think through the issue before you respond any further. Neither Sarvagnya nor Nalchip have any axes to grind and are both experienced and helpful users. The fact that a source is used elsewhere in wikipedia is not in itself evidence of reliability as this can vary from subject to subject. Secondly, the onus is on the person who wants to use something to show that they are correct to do so. Sarvagnya and Nialchip have the right to ask you to demonstrate the source is reliable and you are expected to do so if you want to keep the source. The questions posed are reasonable and it will help you understand our admitedly arcane guidelines if you just humour them and work though it. I should also point out that you are always welcome to ask the nice folks at WT:RS for an informed opinion about any disputed sources - in fact this is often a nice way to resolve a dispute without the need for bloodshed. Oh, and please don't take this as meaning that you have stepped out of line, you haven't yet but I can see you getting frustrated and wanted to suggest alternative ways of solving this. You are clearly a good editor but we can all improve and working through this issue will a) help you understand how to solve editing disputes better and b) help you understand the sourcing guidelines. In other word we all win. Wikipedia gets an even better editor and the article gets improved. Spartaz Humbug! 19:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This situation is getting very frustrating now. What Shahid is clearly objecting to is the belief by these two editors that these sources are not reliable when rediff.com and www.boxofficeindia.com are major sites and the latter is an official site. It is very difficult for Shahid to walk away and forget about it and take some time away when he feels that the articles he has worked so hard on are under attack. Look we're going to have to come to some reasonable conclusion on this so everybody is happy. This can't go on. People need to stop opposing things out of spite and work together to improve it for everybody. Some of the actions on the FA nomination is like a school playground . I would strongly suggest that if Sarvagnya and Nialchip have any objections to sources they discuss it first in the talk pages before making changes to avoid it flaring up again. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have repeated for the nth time now that boxofficeindia is "official". What do you mean by "Official"? Who made it "official"? Who runs it? Is it run by the official body that governs Bollywood or is it run by amateurs? And when did i say rediff was non-RS. I personally dont like Rediff all the time, but I am not going to make a case that it is non-RS. prietyzinta.com, bollyspice, boxofficeindia etc., are nothing more than fansites and hence non-RS. Sarvagnya 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the website sources can be replaced immediately by ones which are seen as more reliable this should be OK -I also don't want to source articles from fansites either. Howver what I don't want to see is anybody's hard work removed or an edit war without a rationalized discussion. At present I admit I am concerned by the dead link on the home page of the box office site. Surely there must be other online sources which adequately confirm accuracy in articles? What about Times of India etc? If somebody could find out about the box office india or at least find out who the publisher I feel conflict can be avoided easily ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • FWIW I had a shufti at the site. I can't find any about on the website and that is the first place I look for evidence of what kind of fact checking and reliability a site has. The main page makes no mention of it being offical anything. It does say that information comes from trade publications and distributor declarations but there are no links anywhere to the source material. I spent a lot of time at WT:RS in the past and I'd be very concerned to use this source without more information about the background of people behind this. This is as anyonmous as it could possbily be and that worries me if we can't find duplicate sources that reproduce the information. Surely this can't be the only place to find this material? Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My words exactly - my concern was only the dead link and I figured the sources could be easily replaced. Thats what I meant before is to check the Times of India see if it quotes Box Office India which it does -great. You;ll need to ensure you replace all those questionable sources. At present it does seem rather odd that there isn't more central or home page info on that site as most major websites have some kind of structure. I'm glad Spartaz you have also given a chance to see the quality of Shahid's work and stength of character and efforts in Indian cinema. Happy edits ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling though the others will need more proof of the reliability of that site. If it had a home page and at least some details of its contributors it could be sorted asap ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of things editors have begun jumping on the band wagon over reference issues. I strongly urge you to try to use the most reliable sources and check each one - try to find replacable references form Times of India or something for those sites which are questionable. The problem is Bollywood stuff on the Internet is often fan based and much information written by people close to the industry but may not be "professionals". But to rmeove references and take away information which can't be seen as"fully correct" is a crime I think if it ruins the content of the article which many who actually know about the film industry believe is true anyway. Best of luck and hang in there - I'll be staying away from the nomination page for a while. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they claim the Times of India isn't reliable then this most certainly is a joke. Isn't it the worlds biggest newspaper or something? Haaa! Nobody would question the New York Times would they? Oh my god. Well if they are going to regard that as unreliable then you'll never be able to win. All thats missing is an FA in writing, 25 of us can see it is of clear FA quality. I'm not going to fuss and argue with them over that. I admire you for doing so much with it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just left my comments there and again I'm disgusted with their response to this. I've never known anybody to be so obsessed over mainstream sources. In all my experience on here sure I've seen many editors question sources such as fansites but not major newspapers like this. People are trying to build an encyclopedia and adding references which they think are good enough to make this improved but if all these sources can't be regarded as reliable , just how are these articles going to improve? They really need to get their priorities sorted. I loathe people who try to disrupt development based on their own petty ends. You must be exhausted. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its peculiar that. I don't have any problems with them objecting to that source if the home page can't be accessed but to consider the Times of India not reliable is a joke. If we can't find out who the site is operated or written by then we can't really completely assert its accuracy even if you and I know it is the official site. There must be something online which documents box office earnings but these sites are probably also considered not reliable either. Isn't there a book or leaflet or something that prints out this information where we can reliably state the publisher? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know its a shame isn't it -and your're going beyond anything I would have done to try to put it right and win their support . Good thinking asking classicfilms , he would likely consider this situation of questioning some of the major sites unusual too. It would be interesting to hear his perspective on this. It would be ten times worse if his article was removed from an FA as a result of this as well. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I can't believe that, on a site this huge across the world as well!!. I mean if you type like George W. Bush or India into google wikipedia is like the top or second entry . I'm quite shocked - I'll be expecting Jimbo to pay me now (LOL!) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hey Shahid, sorry for the late reply. I was really busy these past couple of days. I got your message before but didn't have enough time to respond to it. How come all of a sudden the user is choosing sites that are unreliable. He told me that box office india was unreliable but as I can see now, you've provided the ref. for it being realiable. Good Job!! So now, according to that person, which sites are reliable and un-reliable. According to what I've been reading, sites like indiafm and rediff seem to be reliable. Are there any more? What about the unreliable ones?? Once again consider my apologies for not helping you with this matter before. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 17:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta

Thanks, Shahid, although I, too, lost patience a few times :-) It's not a "failure"; it's feedback to help make the article better for the next time. I hope the issues are addressed soon and we'll see Preity back on FAC; I've enjoyed getting to know "the only man in Bollywood", who must be quite a woman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I'm quite surprised the nomination ended so suddenly it sometimes last well over a month. I think it was because of the trouble I think. We had a vast majority of 25 supports including from several admin but those few users kind of got a fire burning didn't they and rather than actually help it they would rather make things even worse. The article is an FA in many people's eyes and is a role model for articles on Indian actors- it just amazes me how much people will try to stop something being promoted. Very disappointing from them . The question is, is all the pussy footing about to correct trivialities for these people really worth the stress? Ah well we tried. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOOOOWWWW!!! Thats awesome and your words mean such a great deal!!! Thankyou so much amigo. SPECTRE is very proud of you too -those words are the kindest I've ever seen on here. I was afraid you might walk away in disgust at the nomination and not return for some time, but I can see quite the opposite and that you have a great strength of character which is clearly reflected in your will to improve these articles greatly. Also the admin and whoever initially disregarded and blocked you also gained a greater respect for you after seeing your actual contribution. I was a little surprised it wasn't left open longer - we had 25 supports and from several administrators and seaosned editors who have been here for years and have a significant experience with FA's -surely that must account for something. Just remember that -if it was a vote we would have won many times over - but at times it seems that it is impossible to do anything when the nomination is clogged up by the actions of a few. Echoing the words of Universal Hero and Bollywood dreamz earlier, the hours of work that has gone into this article to improve it all the way seeing a huge improvement in the article is exemplary, an example to follow not on just Indian or actor related articles but for all. It is still one of the few A-class articles on wikipedia but all thats stopping it is those few people. The King of Baldness bows his Grant Mitchell baldhead down to you. All the respect in the world, ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hello

Hello Shahid,
Thanks for stopping by, and leaving me the note. I see that you are a valuable editor, and have a very good contribution history. I respect that wholeheartedly. But evading of block, by an experienced editor like you, was not acceptable, and I thought it was my duty to bring an admin attention to it. After you were unblocked, assuming good faith, I was fine with that, and did not pursue it further. Also, regarding Zinta article, I see your lot of hard work. But, that does not mean, the article is of FA quality. You might have seen the comments I had given in the FAC page. Several of the sentences/claims were removed from the article, after I raised the concerns over POV and sources. I just saw that, the FAC is archived now, and it is not promoted. What I suggest you is, to read and understand all the policies related to FAC and get a better understanding of what the qualities of a featured article needs. IMO, Preity Zinta article is far away from FAC. No doubt there is a lot of hard work gone into its current state. But, it needs lot of improvement, and most important among those improvements must be addressing reliability concerns. Also, I believe, it was too soon to hit FAC board, just after gaining GA status. Then what is the difference between GA and FA? Regarding edit summaries, I respect edit summaries very much, and use it to give as much description as possible about edits I make. It is easiest way of conveying what an editor is trying to do with that edit. Please see Help:Edit Summary for more details, and use it as much as possible. I hope, I have made it clear on my stand. Wish you all the best for your future work, and please keep up the good work. Thanks, - KNM Talk 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zinta

Hi Shahid, I know you won't lose your heart over the non-promotion of article. You are a valuable editor and you have certainly proved it. If you are OK, I'll work on the article and remove/reword all blatant POV like sentences and words. We'll work on adding the credible sources later. Fine? Gnanapiti 20:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ IndiaFM News Bureau (January 31, 2006). "Down the Memory Lane: Preity's 7th birthday party". indiaFM. Retrieved December 19, 2006.