User talk:Bollyjeff

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Archive 1 (2010) Archive 2 (2011) Archive 3 (2012) Archive 4 (2013) Archive 5 (2014) Archive 6 (2015) Archive 7 (2016)

Happy New Year!

Bollyjeff,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi, you are invited to discuss

Jeff, would you like to review my second solo FLC? I would appreciate your gesture.Krish | Talk 15:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understood now i don't add portal 2010s link any article page in less than 2010s film article I'm sorry bro. ⭕⭕⭕⭕⭕⭕ 03:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so recently I've tried to edit the section of the Wiretapping Allegations to put it in a true, neutral POV. I have reverted the article twice do to edit conflicts among the other users. So I've decided to try to reach a consensus on the talk page of the article. Could you perhaps back me up here? From what I can tell, the latest edit by

I'm trying to clean up the section of the article as it is not only short on content, but I feel that it is to an extent, may it be direct or indirectly favoring one side. Kirby (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bollyjeff, there's a discussion at

User:Bollyjeff Hi! A Wiki article has just recently been written about Indian vlogger and former model, Scherezade Shroff. If you have anything to add with supportive sources, please feel free to do so.Davidbena (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions it was dubbed in Tamil as Akbar. I've found evidence that it was released in 1961 (courtesy, The Indian Express dated March 3). Please see where in the article it can be used. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thanks. Bollyjeff | talk 01:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look for any single template of a film series whether it belongs to

Yes! games, theme parks and all media related to the franchise can be added but not the peoples engaged in that. I am aman goyal (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, "a film that has been running in a theater in India for nearly 20 years, making it by far the longest running film ever in the country. It helped propel to stardom an actor who is now arguably the biggest movie star in the world."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and six! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't want to be dragged into a long article talkpage discussion, but since you left a message there, could you please tell them that the content was not removed, but moved out of the lede, into the body of the text? They should already know that (it's in the edit summary). I think they may be trolling us, which is why I don't want to write on that talkpage. There are also POV issues ("excellent", "one of the best") but those can be dealt with/rephrased later. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else did. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that in the same lede, it says it is "one of the best", but in the RS at the end of the sentence, it is ranked 52 globally, 31 nationally and 108 globally. One of the best makes it sound like it's in the top 10-20 universities, which is not true. The lede appears to be misleading. Would you like to fix this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US News ranks it 14 in the nation, within the top 20. That is a better source for the statement, so I changed it. Bollyjeff | talk 01:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Isn't "one of the best" problematic though? I would prefer if we said, "as of 2017, it is ranked 108 and 52 globally, or 31 and 14 nationally, depending on the ranking.". That would be the truth. This may be a widespread problem; I just happened to see it there.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is subjective, especially when the ranks vary so much. It doesn't make sense to give specific numbers for that reason either, and they will change every year. Let's see if your question gets any traction. Did you check the archives? I find it hard to believe that this hasn't come up before. I did a quick check and found an RfC with no consensus. Such joy. Bollyjeff | talk 13:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor added the undue info to the lede yet again, despite the explanation on the talkpage. They also added lots of self-sourced content, basically advertising. Can you please fix this and explain to them why we need to use reliable third-party sources? Some of the info we could keep, like the library (that's not POV, I don't think), but the rest needs to be trimmed or simply deleted. It's exhausting and potentially disruptive. I hope you have more patience and diplomatic skills than I do!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One diplomatic way out of this would be to find sources on Newspapers.com or in books and replace the RS they added, to show them how it works. But ignoring the talkpage was not a good move on their part. Not cool. Have you noticed similar patterns with other articles about universities?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of Emory University says "Emory is frequently cited as one of the world's leading research universities and one of the top institutions in the United States." with TONS of RS. Not sure if that's better/more acceptable?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not motivated to spend too much time fighting people on Wikipedia anymore, sorry. Bollyjeff | talk 12:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Would you please take care of this? I have been trying to help but the red-linked editor keeps adding misleading information.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else did. Let's hope it remains stable. You may also want to opine on

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Shall we ban the U.S. News & World Report?. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Bollyjeff. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is not of mine this man is already dead, but the most positive man around. And he was an event manager. Draft:Sanjay Kukreja Noname479 (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only added that picture and I only clicked that picture after My Name Is Khan's press conference held by Mr. Sanjay Kukreja in Mumbai. Noname479 (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its not about removing criticism . I feel this page portraits a bit too much negativity about the actor, where as she has had a good career and is looked at very positively by the audience. So without distorting the facts was only making minor changes in language. Also thought that as she is well known by her first name so instead of Kaif can we change it to Katrina? Kindly look into the same. CAMSangeeta (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't harm to credit all the singers in my opinion, the word is 'including'. What do you think? Wolf Cola (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are listing Rafi first, with his one song versus her nine, and adding his name with hers where it is not equal in the sources. Bollyjeff | talk 16:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean but I went on the word 'including' because there is Lata there, Bade Ghulam Ali Khan there, so I thought all the playback singers should be listed there. Also, I didnt look at it based on the 'quantity' of songs but just crediting all the singers in the soundtrack. It is a very minor edit anyway. Wolf Cola (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Wow Krishna23456 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bollyjeff,

Preity Zinta is using her name as 'Preity G Zinta' on her official accounts like facebook & twitter etc...'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrugeshsingh (talk • contribs) 09:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bollyjeff

I was going through Hrithik Roshan Wikipedia Page and notice that Citation [150] had been Inaccurately Quoted. The article no where mentions that the case was files to cover up the Divorce proceedings. Kangana did refute the allegations in media. More over Hrithik has files no case against Kangana. The case filed is against an anonymous source for cyber stalking and harassment. Besides all that the data "cover up the Divorce proceedings" at citation 150 is incorrect can you please remove this.(Sirajbrunton (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I am no expert on this stuff, but the source does seem to say what is claimed as far as I can see. You would be better off putting this on the talk page of the article so that others can give their opinion as well. Bollyjeff | talk 16:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 20, 2018

This is to let you know that the

Hello, Bollyjeff. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

You are editing in an area governed by 3 different discretionary sanctions and it's a request to proceed carefully. On a side-note, the templates read the same (and might feel bombastic) except for the topic-names but ArbCom prescribes these delivered in the exact manner, as I've done. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that certainly is discouraging. I must have landed on a very unfriendly part of Wikipedia. Your tone and foul language were not called for at all. I will go back to the parts of WP where I am more appreciated and can be productive now. I must say though, all that is happening on Dice's article and talk page clearly indicates that his views on media censorship seem to indeed be correct. Bollyjeff | talk 02:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each notice mentions It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. I would have preffered to deliver this in a customized friendly message but as I said; that's not a valid form. It's just making you aware about the existence of

WP:AC/DS

which calls for extra carefulness.

At any case, I do not see any minimally foul language directed at you. Also, I don't much bother about your feelings about media-censorship except that you are always welcome to join the multitude of discussions. ∯WBG^converse 06:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bollyjeff,

Please excuse any potential canvassing, but I read your comments on the Mark Dice talk page, and I'm wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the second AfD of the article about me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Waugh, which I feel was the subject of a deliberate take-down by Wikipedia editing group "Art + Feminism" because my gender and race do not serve their quotas of representation on Wikipedia. The two most notable sources for the article in question had already been vetted in a previous AfD as having satisfied the notability requirement before the second AfD.

Thank you, Jesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessewaugh (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cupidvogel has made an unusually large and relatively unprofessional edit. As the one who took this to FA, can you please deal with it by cutting down unwanted text? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has vandalised the "Kajol Filmography" page and it needs to be reverted, I am not sure how but maybe you can help

Hey! How are you? It's been so so long. I pinged you on Chopra's talk page yet you did not respond. Would you please help in the discussion this time?Krish | Talk To Me 18:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to do? I don't have the time or desire to read all of the changes that were made and all of the comments that were made. I am not fond of the conflict between editors either. If you can give me a quick overview of the problem, and an idea of what I can actually do about it, I will try to answer. Bollyjeff | talk 19:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so Krimuk2.0 changed Chopra's article significantly without any discussions in 2018 which violated NPOV as that editor had added mixed/negative review for Dil Dhadakne Do (positively reviewed) and Jai Gangaajal (mostly positively reviewed). Other than that, the editor had added "undue weight" (against WP rules) to Barfi (by adding a tad showy to show it's mixed) and Mary Kom (trashy screenplay; not related to her performance and the film has 83% on RT) to that article. Other changes include removal of "known for her philanthropic work" in the lead and changing of "Widespread success to Recognition for Barfi and Mary Kom". All these things were in the article for over 6 years yet it was changed in 2018 without discussion which violates NPOV rules as WP is against undue weight and sections are named after overall summary of a particular phase. I mean other Bollywood actresses' articles (Kareena Kapoor has sections named as success, widespread success and continued success) mention success 100 times yet that editor had problem with this article. So when I fixed these he reverted me in March so I started a discussion and everyone agreed on removing "undue weight" yet I was reverted again. This is why I had pinged you to take part in the discussion. Apparently, I cannot add even a comma without his permission. Many other things were changed too but I just wanted to fix these NPOV violating things in the article.Krish | Talk To Me 20:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you're well. Can you expand and save this Dharmendra film from deletion? Been a while since we worked together! By the looks of it it should be redirected to Do Sher and expanded there.

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bommarillu-Movie-poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Kuch Kuch Hota Hai

Hey there, in this edit I noticed you reverted an IP's attempts to change the billing order. Given how the industry tends to list men first, it seems unlikely to me that Shah Rukh Khan would have been placed last, but I honestly have no idea because I can't find a good bootleg video online to verify. Do you have access to the credits somehow? No biggie, but I thought I'd check. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimple Kapadia

Hi there, remember me? I hope you are well.

I was hoping you could consider posting comments on the Dimple Kapadia FAC. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sholay

You mentioned two citations 106 and 111 claiming that Sholay may be the highest grossing Indian film, adjusted for inflation. Citation 106 is not about gross of the films. Read the page properly. It is about which film is a bigger hit in terms of "the volume of public watching them in a particular era" and films that established a mark for other films. Sholay was at top owing to it being watched over a long time and its multiple releases (that was common at that time). Similarly read about other entries in the list, the talk is never about the box-office collection but more on being watched/ liked. In Citation 111, there is no such mention of Sholay, except for Dhoom 3 (2013) which was then the highest grossing Indian film. Atleast the box-office collection of Mughal-e-azam (1960) and Dangal (2016) are more than that of Sholay. You may check Wikipedia only/ other trusted sites. Hence I am making changes Ds303 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Dhoom 4 hoax vandal.

It would be nice if you could provide your input on the Dhoom 4 hoax vandal, as to what has been happening on Dhoom (franchise), Talk:Dhoom (franchise), and Draft:Dhoom 4 on this discussion at ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#I think an Admin forgot to salt a page which I requested to be salted when I nominated the page for CSD. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Need Your Help in Improving Draft:Qentelli

I see that you have contributed a lot to the wiki community. Seek your help in improving this draft further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qentelli MaruthiSharma1234 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bollywood

Hi,

Since you voted for starting a discussion on Bollywood's name change at WT:INCINE, you might want to take part in the current move request that I started on

Talk:Bollywood. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please change your username to Hindi-cinemajeff. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! If I with this name am agreeing to the move, that's really saying something, right? Bollyjeff | talk 13:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally! Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here !

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indic Script consensus

Please kindly read my discussion under User_talk:Javierfv1212#Replacing_Devanagari_with_Brahmi and User_talk:Symphing12#Aṣṭādhyāyī and maybe let's begin anew a talk about consesus on using Indic Scripts, because I think those contained in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_48#Native_languages_in_lead (re:lead)] and Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_64#Multiple_Indicscript_in_infoboxes_are_out_of_control (re:infobox) are dated. noychoH (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]