User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 27

I appreciate that you really want to keep this going, and fine. A request for comments will not bring in people who haven't bothered before now to comment, so that is essentially a waste of time. If an issue is of enough concern, people speak up, and if not, they generally stay out of it. I have a concern about what could appear to be canvassing on your part to keep this issue going, and that is not particularly appropriate, especially if you are considering opening a RfC. In any case, please don't cite my comments when you are approaching other editors about this. I will go along with what the majority of editors support, which, if you'll look back, is what I did when I first opened this discussion. I'd rather you not use my comments to support your efforts here. I ended up feeling trounced upon enough in the discussions after the change was made. I will say, for the record, I doubt that the editors who already offered their view on this will likely change their minds because the question is opened again. Also, I would quite appreciate it if you would stop posting everywhere that the removal was too hasty. That was addressed in the ensuing discussions by multiple editors, including administrators, that they saw no undue haste, that the process was given as much time as most other discussions, RfAs, deletions, etc. are given on Wikipedia, and honestly, when you continue to post that it was too hasty, it only stirs controversy. Rather than bring up such things, perhaps it would be more productive to focus on your points, not on your view of the process. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you put words in my mouth or misrepresented what I said. I'm simply not comfortable with my comments being referenced across talk pages - that seems to validate something that I'm not sure matters. People make up their own minds. However, I really do urge you not to appear to be canvassing, that's frowned upon when you're suggesting a request for comments or polling should take place. There are several administrators who have been a part of the discussion at various points, including Garion96, and I don't think it is advisable to do anything that would appear to be inappropriate. You, of course, are free to do as you wish, but I'm making that suggestion in good faith. One time, out of 3 years and nearly 30,000 edits, did I ask someone to support something I suggested - mostly because I knew they already did - and was a bit chastised for it. Take it in good faith.

I think the previous decision was extremely hasty, and not well handled. As you have said many times and despite multiple administrators stating the contrary. It can be your opinion on it, but using that as the reason for anything feels a bit contentious. It was handled according to protocol, the time frame was within the same time frames given to any number of other similar situations. I realize you think this, but I absolutely think that horse has been beaten to death and honestly, it just continues to cast me in a poor light, when I did what any number of editors have done in the past when a change seemed needed. However, like I said, I see no point in having another vote and a request for comments, too. That is redundant and a waste of time - whoever chooses to respond to one would probably be the only ones who respond to the other. I'm not going to involve myself as deeply in this as I did before, mostly because the whole discussion made me feel like I had done something wrong and despite one or two saying to the contrary, I was attacked somewhat in the discussion. It has nearly caused me to quit WP:ACTOR completely and too often, I seem to be the only one who bothers with the day to day issues that come up with the project. Lots of people start projects and then leave them to others to deal with. I could name three off the top of my head. I simply urge you to do one or the other - both is pushing the issue too much, I think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why would a new poll at

WT:ACTOR matter? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

So you propose having the

WT:ACTOR poll and also ask the community if they approve? My point is why ask the ACTOR people to bother if you also are seeking comment from others that don't otherwise bother? My experience with RfC is that only the people who are concerned are the ones who answer anyway and I've seen them not bring any response. If you're asking the WP:ACTOR group to respond once again with their viewpoint on it, is that not the concerned group anyway? If an RfC doesn't go the same way as the ACTOR poll, then what? Say everyone else wanted it so the ACTOR group decision doesn't count? I'm really not clear on why you think both is necessary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This isn't the same type of issue whatsoever. That got the response it got because it concerned a

WT:TALK. There's a big difference between opening RfC over a content dispute and opening one when a good faith effort is being made to revisit the issue with which you take exception. What does that tell the rest of us at the project? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

When you post something on

WP:RFC/ART, you are posting a request for comment. An RfC takes place on the article/project talk page, but it is an RfC nonetheless. You mentioned Talk:Richard Gere#Gerbil and a request for comments was opened for that. It's an even bigger issue when you are disagreeing with something and an effort is being made to revisit it already. CactusWriter stated he plans to include the various points and you stated you are going to ask if the awards section should have been removed. That's far different. No one said that not everyone is allowed to voice an opinion, but in my view, the people who have responded are actually the ones who care. I'm not sure who it was that commented on it, but it was said quite well - the change has been noticed and few even questioned it. If you want to open an RfC on whether the awards should have been removed, then do so, but why should the rest of us bother to respond to a new polling if you do? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said, when you post to an RfC page, the discussion does take place on the article or, in this case, the project talk page. It does not take place on the RfC page, ever. When you post on the RfC page, you are opening a request for comment. That isn't done when a good faith effort is being made to revisit something, it is for disputes that are not or cannot be resolved. If you post there, you are opening an RfC. As a point of observation on how things stand, 8 editors supported the removal, 3 have objected and one asked if it should have gone on longer but made no statement for or against. I'm not sure I know what a consensus would be to you. If it stays at 8-3-?, is it a consensus? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought. How do you suppose the other 7 people besides me who already had given an opinion view all of this? Does it not tell them their opinions were not valid? You've had some of them speak up about this already, do you think they will change their minds? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Then I'd suggest that you tell CactusWriter explicitly that this is what you are doing and when you post this, do not word it the way you suggested. The question needs to be neutral and not convey your opinion. Perhaps you could save CactusWriter some extra work. Personally, I think this is unnecessary and skirts on

Since I nominated the article originally and because I'm currently highly involved in discussions where I'm holding a stance in support of rigorous sourcing to the point of deleting new unsourced content, I'm feeling even less comfortable deleting the article than the other admin you asked. I recommend you to take one of 2 courses of action: 1) Make a start by writing the replacement article yourself and put the referenced entry in place when it reaches DYK standards. 2) Ask for an admin to review the decision on the admin noticeboard 3) Ask for a

Hi. Thanks for your message. I'm glad you like some of the articles I've worked on, and that was a really nice message to receive. You make a good point about mentioning the names of the films Bette Davis won her awards for. Considering that the first of them is an otherwise minor film in the wider context of her career, the way I've worded it isn't the best option. I'll reword it along the lines of your suggestion. I don't agree with all your comments regarding the awards field. My view has always been that the infobox should contain only the basic information needed to identify a person. I think too much emphasis is placed on awards, as though it's the most important thing to say about the actor. They're usually mentioned in the lead section (sometimes the lead covers nothing but awards), then again in the article itself, again at the end of the article in the award succession box or even in a section specifically about awards, often in filmographies. To then add it in the infobox.... it just makes me wonder how many times the same award needs to be mentioned. I appreciate we are very different in our opinions on this matter, but I just wanted to explain that it's not just the infobox that I'm worried about, but the overall balance and weighting of the awards when the entire article is looked at. Rossrs (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I saw your comments a while back so I know you support the move. A lock has been placed on these pages so Pepe can't keep restoring POV lists. I guess you don't look at you talk page when you log in. The first thing I do is read and sort out my messages. Perhaps you are different. I just see your reverts lighting up on my watchlist and was surprised you didn't comment on it first thats all, evne if not to be at least on

Argh I just lost my message in an edit conflict. OK but when I log in the first thing I want to do is remove the irritating message banner and read my messages as I can't look at any articles with it being there personally! Oh Pepe thinks my sole goal in life is to protect Bollywood directors interests. LOL I couldn't not fit the bill more. I am just exceedingly tired of these people planting their own POV and agendas into articles, I'm sure you agree as you seem to spend most of your time blocking their edits on here these days! I don't think they understand what an encyclopedia actually is but then again neither do a lot of other people on here with their lists of Pokeomon and petty squabbles at ANI. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groan groan. Everything he says is based upon his view or belief system, his agenda to expose the Bollywood robbers. Thats where he is going wrong in that he can't see things from a neutral encyclopedia perspective and why it is inappropriate to pass judgements with little solid evidence to present it as fact. Somebody needs to shove Wikipedia:No original research down his throat and make him wake up! A lot of people unfortunately will never understand this, fortunately a lot of these people burn out and give up, its just shame there will always be more who continue the trend when they could be working to actually improve the articles decently. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Hehe. Well I tired of that discussion long ago, I've said what I have to say. The page is locked because his continued reverting and restoration of original research is disrupting and a redirect to a summary in prose is clearly appropriate. He may protest all he likes but the strength of his arguments are very weak indeed. If he was really interested in improving our information base he'd move on to something else. Something tells me he won't... He's stuck now he can't restore it and if he does try to restore it under another name this will be spotted. Best Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My beautiful mummy brought me back lovely Cornish pasty from the Isles of Scilly. Its their 30th wedding anniversary today. It is one of the best and biggest pasties I've ever tasted ad is absolutely HUGE its about 12 inches long and5 inches wide! Yum thanks mummy! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, I've told you loads about my sister the world traveller remember? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. WHat do you think of Benicio del Toro? I saw Che (film) and I thought he was great in it. He was on Jonathan Ross a few weeks ago and I must admit I was extremely surprised with how nice a guy he is. You'd think he would be very arrogant, he's quite shady looking really isn't he, he looks like a Latin American drug lord but he was actually a very down to earth guy and surprsingly intelligent. Shows you can't judge people with how they look. Before I saw him in an interview I thought he was a horrible guy ever since I saw him play Dario in License to Kill. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Slumdog was good but way off what it was hyped to be. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC) What would you suggest as main image? Its just I get so used to articles having infoboxes and a nice image at the top that it seems rarely bare without it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I didn't love the painting either it just needs something. I thought a picture of Amitabh and Rekha with the romance thing was a good example though. I think we should try to see about adding an infbox and image. I may propose a new Infobox Film industry which could include facts for cinema articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is screaming every last breath to save his species. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bollywood and Plagiarism Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in discussion at Portal talk:Film/Selected biography. Cirt (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my update [1] - mind if I close the Request for Comment as resolved at this point? Cirt (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will close it, since the original two editors that started the whole thing are now in agreement. :P And thanks very much for the barnstar! Cirt (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the friendly note and the kind way you are acting in all this. I too hope for an amicable resolution. Yours, Cirt (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove biography WikiProject tags from relevant article pages, as you did here [2] and here [3]. The pages are within the scope of WikiProject Biography, and you will note that all talk pages at Category:FL-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles are tagged in this fashion. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I don't want to, it's a rule. Administrators should not close debates they're actively involved in because no matter how impartial they try to be, their own opinion is always going to affect how they close it. Not closing debates I'm invovled with keeps me out of trouble. You should get a better response from an administrator who is not involved in the discussion through

• I've posted to the administrator's noticeboard to ask an uninvolved administrator to take a look. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments is just that. A request for comments. It's not proper for you to request that someone commenting should be asked to vote. See

Because I made a series of propositions in good faith that I believe were in the best interest of the project and you must admit, I've taken quite a thumping for it, from more than one quarter. I honestly believe that actor articles are becoming overburdened with the emphasis on awards, mostly because everyone has his or her own little corner for where it should be added. Some people want to add succession boxes, while others want to add templates for each and every category of every major awards show - have you seen how bottom heavy some of them are? Rossrs and I have tried to deal with keeping the POV wording "Blah Blah is an Academy Award-winning actor" from the lead sentence on oh so many articles. It's POV because in most cases, that's the only award some people care to add to the lead. Then they go on to enumerate just how many awards and nominations are received in the lead. Then they often times only care to include award nominated/winning films in career sections. Then we put it in the infobox, then it is added in the filmography, and if we're really lucky, someone will also write a separate awards section, followed by a listing of awards. I try to reduce that to include it in the filmography because they usually have ample space for the stark listings/awards sections that include all of the critics and film festival awards. It's overwhelming. When I compare those to a great article like Bette Davis or Vivien Leigh, Kate Winslet or even Heath Ledger (neither of which I should include because I've done so much work on them, but still, we've been thinking of finally condensing down the death sections for Ledger's and submitting it to GA), they pale in comparison. I think readers want to know a lot more about an actor's career than what awards were won - how a career developed, stumbling blocks, critical reception of both good and bad films, how they effected a career, etc. etc. etc. And I spend a good deal of time trying to fix little things that people don't notice - ever seen the listing at the top of the project talk page for Academy Award winning actors who don't have a filmography at all or have one that needs expanded and tabled? Those should be a a major focus and then move on down the awards list. I'm sure someone has done some of the articles, but that has mostly been Rossrs and myself working on them. It started some time ago with over 100, and slowly we've whittled it down to around half that. And those are generally actors with huge filmographies. He and I have worked a lot on analyzing articles that need a lead clean up, expansion or something fixed, such as images that need resized or replaced. We opened discussion, which got next to no feedback, on developing the actors who are of top priority for the project. That is an important aspect of our project. We focus on content all the time. And I do try to answer any questions that pop up, because I recall how frustrating it was for me the first time I posted a question. You can see here that no one whatsoever bothered to answer. Someone had made a template for Gene Hackman films, what a nasty little mess that was. That was when I became very active in the project, because I didn't want people to be ignored when they were actually showing interest. Anyway, what's gone on with this infobox change is the reason I'm fed up. If you'd look at the talk page revision history, of the last 500 edits, beginning 16 July 2007, over 160 of them have occurred since 25 March. The page was practically a ghost town until this change occurred. To me, that means the project is fairly meaningless most of the time. S.orry for the long answer, I felt like the question needed fair treatment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised, but thank you for your words and for withdrawing the RfC. I hope you'll jump in somewhere and help with some of the things Rossrs and I have tried to do. Some people focus on loftier goals than others, but sometimes we can all work together to improve things. (I was hoping you'd say "You all have done a good job on Kate Winslet and Heath Ledger!" Heh.) I love Baby Boom. It's a very sweet movie and one of my more favorite Diane Keaton films - though I'm also a bit partial to Hanging Up. Every actor has great films, but their smaller ones often get overlooked. Enjoy! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta was yours? Wow, congratulations and great work! Kate is close to being ready but Heath needs to be reduced just a bit. The death sections need to be trimmed somewhat, but I thought it should wait until the dust settled and what is more important becomes more obvious. I like Kathy Bates, but I have to wonder if Dolores Claiborne was just too dark with no relief. The awards people are a bit reluctant with most

Shawshank Redemption is probably the best production of King's work and if it had gotten the credit it deserved when it was released, and which it has now, it would have won awards. Misery got some great recognition and Bates was wonderful in that role - it was just a smidge more campy and I think that helped a lot. The other two really great King films were Stand by Me and The Green Mile. For horror, there's Carrie, but it doesn't hold up well with time. My favorite horror film of his was undoubtedly the first tv mini-series made from Salem's Lot

. There's a scene where this little boy who was made a vampire is floating in the air, scratching on the window of his friend's second story bedroom - "Let me in. I'm sooooo hungry!" Eeks!

I'm sure Rossrs and I will let you know when we take up the drive again. His summer is almost done so we'll get back to it soon. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It was nice to hear from you again. I didn't realize Preity Zinta was yours either. That's a very well crafted article and you deserve congratulations for it. Now that I've read your last message to me, it seems we have pretty similar opinions, and I'm glad that the air has been cleared. At least all that discussion allowed a few people to express their opinions, and I think it's good to see how other editors see things. I notice you mentioned being a fan of Kathy Bates and coincidentally I expanded the lead section recently, just so that it wasn't all focussed on her awards. (I like her too. Misery is very unsettling, but she's very touching in Fried Green Tomatoes and even Titanic, although the part was small.) If you want to see a lead section that I really don't like, have a look at Judi Dench. I've looked at it about 100 times and thought "this needs some work" but it's a little daunting. I don't even know where to begin. Hmmm I got Salem's Lot about 2 years ago, and I still haven't watched it. I really must.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suddenly happy with the awards section removed? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Ahh that's cute. I kinda knew that it would end up like that such is life as I said by email. I was asking them to clean it up not because I agreed with the change but because I didn't want a problem lying around given that they had pretty much reached a "consensus" between themselves. A lot of the infboxes were very cluttered indeed so perhaps the removal of them isn't that bad although I still think a summary of the main awards is good. Hey have you heard of Google Chrome. I'm using it as my browser and the wiki graphic seems much better! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More about actors.... That was a moment, and a really nice one at that. Hopefully it took a little of the disappointment away from missing the article on the main page. At least you get to see what it looked like courtesy of the gentleman who screenshotted it onto the page. If it's any consolation, I spent a huge amount of time on both the Vivien Leigh and Bette Davis articles and missed both of them on the main page! How unlucky is that? I agree with your comments about the Kathy Bates article. Usually, I would suggest that the article is fixed and completed first and then the lead is much easier to present as a summary, but if the lead is obviously lacking, I think it's more urgent to fix, because I suspect a lot of people don't read past the lead unless the lead is good. A lot of the leads bother me for one reason or another, so I've been expanding/updating a few as time allows. (Gwyneth Paltrow, Jessica Tandy, Kay Kendall and Kathy Bates) Next time I look someone will probably have added Kathy's favorite color or the name of her cat to the lead and we'll be busy deleting it. It's interesting that you've noticed how POV some of the articles are for older actors. I find some of them a bit too "hearts and flowers" for my liking, (some of them seem to be written in the style of 30s fan magazines) and you're right - Meryl Streep's is all about the awards. It's amazing that she found time to make films in between all the award ceremonies, if our lead section is to be believed.  :-) Having said all that, I think film bio articles are mostly evolving and being brought up to standard, although it's a slow process, sometimes two steps forward and one step back, and that's frustrating too. I've been here for about 5 years and the way many articles existed back then ... well, the general standard has improved a great deal over that time.

Dr. Blofeld notes above that a summary of awards is good. I agree with that. I think context is important and just focussing on wins, as the infobox did, failed to give an accurate picture of their accomplishments, while a summary would. Examples such as Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Deborah Kerr, Greta Garbo, Agnes Moorehead and Thelma Ritter with an impressive array of Academy Award nominations, but no wins were not adequately recognised by the limitations of the infobox. There are certainly a number of cases where an award summary would be desirable. Rossrs (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leads on those articles are good, especially the lead for Nargis which is excellent. You're right in assuming that I'm not familiar with the people, with the exception of Shilpa Shetty, but the same is true of many American, British, even Australian performers, and that doesn't stop me working on their articles. Which articles would I like to expand to FA? Good question. On a personal level, Carole Lombard and Myrna Loy, because I'm familiar enough with both of them, and have a certain amount of resource material, that I could conceivably do something with them. Audrey Hepburn because the article is already fairly strong, and to a lesser degree Marilyn Monroe. Unfortunately Marilyn attracts a certain type of obsessive editor and some of the exchanges I've had with them, have discouraged me from investing too much time on the article. I'd like to see more and more articles raised to good article status. Then I'd like to see more and more of these good articles given the attention they need to raise them to featured status. I don't think actor biographies are as strongly represented as some other topics. Kate Winslet, Heath Ledger and James Cagney are all very good/excellent articles so it shouldn't take too much to elevate them. Of all the articles I've mentioned, I think James Cagney is the strongest candidate and the one that is currently closest to meeting the required standard. What about you? Which articles would you like to see upgraded? Rossrs (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Blanchette is another one I like. I remember seeing her in one of her early films

WP:UNDUE. I know some editors believe that as long as something is "true" and is supported with a reliable source, it's OK, but Shilpa's acting career disappears in all the controversy. I think it's difficult with some of the older performers such as Rekha who had a substantial career before the advent of the internet. All of the recent events are easily cited, but the older events are more difficult. I found the Madhubala story very tragic, and the infobox image is beautiful. Good luck with whatever you decide to do with these articles, and let me know if there's ever anything I can do to help you. By the way, another article that I think is laid out very well, and which recently became a featured article is Anna May Wong. Rossrs (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Kings XI Punjab

There we are I should probably join the other spammers on wikipedia, lol. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment at the bottom YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they;ve make a comeback. KKR will surely be last now. Famous last words YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actor debate

Hey there. Just a quick question. I went over to the actors project page, but could not, for the life of me, understand where the discussion is going/has gone. If it's not too much trouble, would u give me a brief update? I haven't been as inactive as I thought I would be, so I'd like to reenter talks, if it's not over. Orane (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I'll try to take it up again after exams and hope that more people respond. I hate the way the infobox looks without the section. Orane (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha

Yeah some idiot reloaded the image as the crappy drawing rather than the part of it I cropped. He doesn't understand about Creativwe Commons license in that you can adapt works under the license, Cretin. Don't worry I'll upload another one now. If he persist on trying to replace the crappy drawing then we'll revert him right?. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It looked like Reese Witherspoon rather than Rekha huh? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you now? In Mumbai? Are you going to go to uni? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that Shahid. So you're back in Aus, perhaps because of the terrorist attacks? Thats annoying I know you wanted to be back in Mumbai. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh

Communes of Vietnam. Sub-prefectures of Guinea (which I'm doing at the mo). Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No ther's too many lol. I've set up all the communes of Mali too. See Gory, Mali. There is a USAID site which can be used to expand most of them like this article. Most of them are stubs but at leats they are all up and running, I haven't the time to expand many of them because I have a similar task to do with other countries! The end goal of course is to have several hundred thousand articles evnely by country at this sort of level. I don't think there is a single country I haven't edited or started articles on on wikipedia! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good summary of me don't you think. here. I think its blatantly obvious by the only 1% contributions to the wikipedia talk space I couldn't give a damn about ANI and "policy". Note I have edited 118,000 articles on wikipedia and average only 2 edits per article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have 30,000 edits now. If you don't update your user page I will! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I don't like Reese Witherspoon much, I find her a little irritating actually. Chatterbox. Nice girl but not my type. Good actress but not my cup of tea. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey check out Deforestation in Costa Rica, Deforestation in Sri Lanka and Tea production in Sri Lanka. I think I am going to work towards getting the tea article up to at least GA. Its a cool subject and there are plenty of sources. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may keep it in mind it depends on how it works out and if I have the patience to work on it to FA. Every FA I've gone through I've hated every moment of it!! I think its about time I developed another FA though. Its quite an important article in regards to economic and agricultural history in this region. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like Rachel McAdams? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Wow really? You;ve never seen Wedding Crashers or The Notebook? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you just love the intro music to The Notebook. Beautiful piano track. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you Sheepy Shahid? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alight Sheepy boy? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed by most of her performances, thats why I rate her as one of the world best actresses today. Shahid the Sheep I think has good ring to it. Its in reference to you following the vandals or dumb editors around on your watchlist like a sheep and then reverting their silly edits. Don't worry sheep are very nice animals. Baaaaa! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah its nice, really traditional, not exactly much choice other than that or the Reese Witherspoon pic. LOL the chin and the lips IT WAS Witherspoon LOL. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep and guess who deleted it? Garion the biggest "mick" on english wikipedia. Sorry Witherspoon is back for now, we'll have to get Raul to upload one from Indian FM. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC) LOL. Thats what I thought. It is also apparently avio because of deritatives anyway. Gone is the witherspoon thank God. Shame about the corner though. Any idea why Raul has not uploaded a photograph of her? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. No she's definately not my type either. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black? I quite like her husky voice actually its quite intense. I'd much rather listen to her than sqeaky chatterbox Witherspoon. The woman with the most annoying voice though has to be Janice from Friends. OOHHH MYYY GGAAADDD. Chandler Bing. hahahahaa. So NASSAAAAL!! Simon Cowell's ex Terri Seymour comes a close second. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know LOL Janice's voice is intentional funny and annoying. I love the Indian accent LOL. It always cracks me up when somebody with an Indian accent says something like "Molotov Cocktail" LOL. The oddest accent is probably South African. Its like a weird concoction of Dutch and Australian. LOL. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Italian accent is one of the funniest. They just seem to express themselves so paasionately. The Jamaican/Caribbean accent always makes me feel happy. The weirdest accents are definately Dutch and South African. The term "speaking double-dutch" is commonly used to reference to somebody speaking nonsense in the UK. There are some very peculiar regional accents in the UK, Bristol and west country is funny as is some of the northern accents, especially northern England and Scotland. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL here is a Bristolian with Mr. T here Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go to bed have a listne to this. I love it. So soothing and magical! The

White Album is actually my favoutite Beatles album followed by Help!

. Every time I listen to Help its like the year is 1965 literally. Amazing. The 60s was the best decade ever. Free love, rock n roll, peace movements, drugs, space races, wars, British action TV series like The Avengers etc, James Bond debut, Spaghetti westerns, funky clothes, groovy cars, it had it all, just amazing.

Songs like The Night Before by the Beatles, Turn Turn Turn by the Byrds and Calfifornia Dreamin and probably some of the most sterotypical 60s songs, they really transfer me back the rhe 60s, (if you;ll forgive my Dr. Evil reference LOL) Yeah baby. Yeah!!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh LOL I thought you slept in the day and got up at night? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turn turn turn is an amazing song. What do you think? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really true the average height for a woman is 4'11" and for a guy 5'4" in India? Amitabh and Abishek must be regarded as giants by some LOL? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woaah, my mums above average height for a guy in India! I had no idea whatsoever the average was that low. I knew they were shorter on average than Europeans of course but I thought it would still be like 5'6" or 5'7" for a guy. Shahrukh and Salman are surely above 5'4" though, they are probably above average, in India anyway? Shilpa Shetty must be borderline giant too LOL! OMG people would think I am freakishly tall in India? WHat would they think of guys even taller than me like Peter Crouch LOL? I have Swedish and Scottish ancestry though, so I'm excused for being tall! I can see now why Amitabh is regarded as something of a king in India too in physical appearance alongside legendary acting ability. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess it varies, everybody is different. Never read the book sorry. Have you? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC) You'd find it hard to believe but the personal lives of a lot of actors from the golden age are plagued in controversy. Wife beating, abuse, drink and drugs, thats Hollywood. SOme people may exgarrerate stories to make money, who knows Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you edit articles in terms of writing much anymore? Why don't you go for a GA or something with SRK or something? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you don't go to uni, aren't in full time employment, LOL why do you feel stressed and busy? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You know I had the biggest crush on Sharon Stone in the 90s. At the moment I've got a thing about Patsy Kensit. See here. She looks a ringer for Stone there! Both are blond but are sexy as hell. I normally prefer darker women but these two women I just find extremely sexy. I saw her on Graham Norton a few weeks back in a black sequined dress and damn she gets me HOT! LOL. Are there any women you find extremely sexy more so than being "stunning looking at such". I wouldn't regard Stone or Kensit to be THAT good looking but they certainly have it goin' on for me!! I bet there are a lot of blokes that women find sexy that they wouldn't consider especially good looking and often vice versa there are some men they consider handsome but wouldn't regard as sexy. Are there any women who you find HOTT!! but wouldn't consider to be the "best" looking. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Stone is probably the sexiest woman I've ever seen on film and there are a huge of women I rate highly, from classic Hollywood too. Well Monica Belluci is an obvious one, I'm talking about less obvious ones, women who may not have "supermodel" looks but definately have the mojo LOL? Must admit I don't find Scarlett Johansson particularly good looking but she is undeniably sexy, even if totally not my type. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia's always been hot though and stunning. For a 75 year old that figure is amazing. But we both share our passion for Italian women though! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Well you did say to both Wildhartlivie and Rossr that the Zinta article was "yours" or implied it so I'm sure you can write it? I am kidding actually, thats why I didn't say anything as I do believe the article is your baby, me and Dwaiypanc only helped a little. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Thats why I didn't say anything as I know you were the main editor, the history says so as well as very closely monitoring content. You should be able to write any additional things yourself. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MADHUBALA

Hi there thank you so much for your feedback on the Madhubala page. i admit i wrote it two years ago largely based on research i was doing for a book (now redundant as so many have already come out :-() but i could add sources to help credibility. i added a bibliography section at the end but i guess its not enough. i admit am a fledgling with html code too but will try and add as per your suggestions take care nav —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navsikand (talk • contribs) 13:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings XI

Looks like it will be a tough year. only a couple of wins over two hopeless teams so far YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]