User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 28

Elam Stylz is a Joseph vijay fan and he is Editing Ajith kumar Articles and Not doing well I all so re edit and keppet but he removed my

Saw Main Hoon Na a couple of weeks ago. Also SRK must be really peed off about the fake ipl player. Still, at least his team is consistent YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. KKR should just start testing out young players for next year... it's stuffed up already YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but you keep editing the Sunidhi Chauhan article and deleting the 'competition with Shreya Ghoshal' section. There IS competition with Ghoshal. It's EVERYWHERE, all the interviewers ask her about it. And about how she feels when awards go to Ghoshal and not her. Because, mostly, they're the two in the lead. They're always compared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.42.64.181 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hindi cinema, there are some films which seem to blur the line between mainstream and parallel cinema, such as Guru Dutt's Pyaasa (1957) or Aamir Khan's Taare Zameen Par (2007), among others. I'm not sure whether they should also be included in the article. What do you think? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Shahid,

I visited your page on Wikipedia, and I can't tell you how much I appreciated your contributions. I was happily surprised about the kind of knowledge you possess about Hindi Cinema, the research you have done, and the way you have put the things on this wiki. This was when I realized that this was because of the devoted contributors like you that I had been reading so many great articles. Please accept my cordial congratulations for the great work you have performed, and my best wishes for all your future articles. I also realized that you are a great fan of Shree Amitabh Bachchan; so am I.

Small question. Am I following any incorrect practice by adding a poem to Amit Ji's page? I am new on Wikipedia, and not very much aware of the conventions yet. Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sky-touching-intention (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ness Wadia is now restored for you to improve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it Shahid. All I said was "I'm busy at the moment". Then I tried to help you solve the problem of the Wadia article by setting up a blue link and nominated the template for deletion helping you evne though I was busy and you give me a ticking off that I shouldn't have done something. I reply saying please do not order me about (especially when I'm trying to help you) and then you rant on at me as if I have been grossly rude and start labelling me as being childish for over a month, being uncool, getting "angry at every instance" and laughing at me because I'm so funny when I get angry and talking about me in a derogatory fashion, that;s why I removed your message. Check your editing history and i've gone out of my way to try to cheer you up and have done nothing to be "very rude" to you 95% of my posts have been completely about nice women and music etc which I thought you might like to talk to me about. You over react all the time Shahid, you are almost too sensitive at times and the moment somebody says something to you you get all worked up, it was the same with Pa7. Sometimes you forget that other people might have problems other than your own. I have not once insulted you. I have no idea what happened to you since you left and then strnagely came back with no explanation but this stressed out, seemingly depressed, over sensitive Shahid I'm seeing is not the Shahid I remember. As for "shouting" in talk pages which I never do you really need to take a look at the way in which you speak to most editors on here who try to edit the Bollywood related articles. I really hope you can work out your real life problems whatever they are because it is sad to see you so touchy and stressed out mate. You can call me disappointing, childish or "uncool" however much you like but it is not me who is stressed. This site is supposed to be fun (and informative of course), I think you are taking a lot of things too seriously. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare how many times I've helped you out compared to how many times you've helped me out on whatever I am working on do you think it would be even?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, your last message was nice. Anywya I hope you don't mind but I've nominated Wadia for a DYK as I thought it would be cool rather than uncool to have the article on the front page after it was deleted. I hope you are fine with this it was a surprise!Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you flesh out the personal life section of Ness Wadia? CheersDr. Blofeld (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the thing is the Times of India April 25 claim that the couple are no longer an item. Most of the reports are from silly blogs though I agree.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding Arjun Rampal's background. The information which was there is absolutely correct and has been cross checked. The sources are absolutely reliable and you are no one to decide if sources are unreliable or something, i already said you have removed information without discussion and as far as Wikipedia's policies are concerned it can be inserted in some different section and when a biography is written about a person his/her ethnicity and parental background is always there in it. I couldn't understand what is your problem regarding that information??!! Why you dont want his parents name to be inserted there and so his ethnicity??? His father name is Amarjeet Rampal and you have contradicted yourself, you say sources are unreliable, if sources are unreliable then howcome whole information is there in that article becuase I had used Imdb.com as a refrence in that and that source has already been used to gather that information in that article, So it is creating confusion about your point of view, I am again repeating if you have problem discuss first what you are doing is complete Vandalism.If WP:MOS is not met you can take the same information and insert somewhere else. Regards, --Shekhartagra (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see discussion page of that article. --Shekhartagra (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that imdb is an unreliable source?? Then please reply how come it has been used as refrence for that article?? What are you trying to do??? that means the other information on the article is unreliable ??? You are totaly contradicting with that article. Reply or I will have to put a tag for citations and unreliable sources --Shekhartagra (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks reliable sources and it also doesn't meet WP:MOS policy as well as you said. So lets merge it with some other section and provide reliable citations or tag it with ^{[citation needed]}.

I really appreciate the barnstar. I hope to continue further improving Indian cinema articles in the future. Once again, thank you Shahid. Best regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ness Wadia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 18:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you have returned. Do you think the

I want my Indian friend back who'll be with me at FAC and not leave me on my own to take on the tough reviewers!Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your problem. Life is far too short to hold grudges and you can go on being bitter with me, it won't make you any happier pretending I don't exist or am some terrible person. I also would never dream of getting in the way of something you were literally in the middle of working on too, to me it showed a major lack of respect for me too. If you want to be miserable that's your choice, if you want to feel happier on here then ignoring my talk page for the sake and hating me every day for the rest of your time on here is not going to make you happy. Nobody wins by continuing to feel this way. I certainly don't have to bother with this article or trying to get it to FA, certinainly not to have people claim it is laughable or a joke. Once the article is condensed and some reduncies removed it is obviously much more comprehensive then before. You haven't mentioned how I have actually corrected many incaccuracies and neutralised what was claimed before by finding sources that totally contradict the earlier version, not to mention removed all the short snappy sentences and intergated them into the paragraphs. All it needs now is condensing and indeed removing what we feel is redundant (e.g the magazine sounding parts) and giving a copy edit. If there is no longer any understanding between us then I will no longer work on Indian cinema articles. Remember that I only started working and getting to know about the actors themsevles because of you and because I shared your ideology that Indian cinema should get equal coverage to western cinema. If you can't bring yourself to speak to me directly again then I will not work on any of these articles again and will take me name off the Indian cinema list because I can't have fellow group members feeling like this about me. Personally I'd rather be on good terms and work with you without the conflict and help promote more of these Indian cinema articles to FA. It's your choice. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm judging by "significant press coverage" of whether something is notable or not, in the way that wikipedia articles do. Unfortunately even the mainstream supposedly serious Indian newspapers are like gossip columns making real encyclopedic content difficult. I've rmeoved about two or three sections that were perhaps not necessary and will continue to do so with your anti-gossip radar. I do think the anorexia/diet reports are notable given the significant coverage but I will condense it. As for mentioning endorsements, this is still a routine part of her other work whether other actors have them or not. Most sports stars have them but they are still widely covered in articles like David Beckham#Fame beyond football and numerous other articles on being in the entertainment industry. The Globus one is notable and I have seen photos of her at many events. As I said I done the "bulking" its now time to do the "cutting and shaping", when the reduncancies you see get removed quickly and you begin to see how much more comprehensive it is afterwards. I added some additional information on some of her films to try to give it some substance and to put some of the films in their context which may be of interest to the reader. Maybe some of it will need to be removed, depends on the reader. As for Kapoor, now I don't think she is hot either. Personally I get the impression she is a bit arrogant maybe, I much prefer Zinta. But the article had potential, shame Rahul also isn't here eh?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Zinta article you felt it important enough to mention that she is the brand ambassador for Go Air, which is still an endorsement. You've also mentioned things like her "trademark is her dimple" and having a "bubbly" personality, content which would normally look unusual in an encyclopedia, but however trivial it may sound they still have relevance to her character and persona. There are many things I would generally leave out of a traditional encyclopedia entry on Kapoor too but sometimes seemingly trivial content may have some relevance. Finding a balance is difficult though as a lot of topics, particularly on Bollywood are based around gossip or speculation rather than your classic encyclopedic material. Virtually all other content on the web discussing Bollywood is written like a blog, a magazine or blog and is riddles hugely in POV so to write a fairly decent and neutral article on anyone in Bollywood is a great achievement I think. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, otherwise I would have mentioned it when we were working on the Zinta article. Kapoor's weight and discussion that she looks thin is also well discussed by journalists and there is significant coverage of it to make it worthy of note. Doesn't have to be in detail, but I still don't think this is redundant. As you can see though I have agreed with you on most and much of what I have removed is what I'd have done anyway with the cutting. You;ve made me aware that something really arne't important though like stage performances, so thanks for letting me know.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid, how many times have I said to you that you are the least guilty of being a POV pusher on wikipedia and have awarded you for your efforts to keep these articles neutral? You spend avast proportion of your time blocking out POV edits. I think I didn't write very well what I actually meant when I was angry. What I meant was that sometimes it stands out when coverage of certain films are not mentioned even though they had leading roles in it because you consider them non notable of even mentioning because they were not a commercial/critical success etc. From a neutral point of view I just feel the films at least need mentioning evne if they were a failure. When I referred to "cherry picking" I was referring to the fact that often the more successful films are given a lot more coverage and stronger positive views for thats all. From neutral encyclopedia view I just mentioned that you make a judgement on what should be ignored and what should be covered thats all, and often it seems like the films which were not a critical and commercial success are sidelined. I am certainly aware that given the fact you restrained from adding your POV to the Zinta article on a woman you love personally that you would certainly not try to do so in the Kapoor article on an actress which doesn't really appeal to you. And for the record I am very thankful of the way you stop these articles from being plagued with POV. My concern was that sometimes you look after them just a little too closely. I'm sorry that I posted to Yellow Monkey as if it was a report, what promoted me to blow my fuse was when I added that inuse tag and there was an edit conflict. You must know how angry that made me and how unrespected I felt otherwise I wouldn't have responded like that. I was fuming as my mind was completely focused on the article and then I felt interrupted thats why I rambled on about you being too possessive of the articles as it was only in two minutes! I'm very sorry I did that, i sincerely am as I would never do that normally, only when I blow a fuse. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, seems I was right about Kapoor's attitude outside films, yeah I detected that!Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm I was also right about

Good to see you back. I'm suprised Ness Wadia is only up there now on DYK, unless it was an expansion. Oh, Punjab won't make it unless RCB/DC beat the other very badly YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line for Punjab YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahid, what would you say about removing the first fair use image? She looks nice but that's about it. I think it makes her look a little dumb and it doesn't really do anything to help the article and would likely be removed at FAC. What do you think? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then I'll remove the top and bottom fair use images then so we keep the turning point image. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is trying to delete all of the Amitabh images including File:Amitabh and Rekha in Silsila.jpg claming they are replaceable. Perhaps you could explain to the tagger that images from the 1970s are not replaceable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the character info and say it was a copyedit? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was partly incorrect and partly odd. I wanted to copyedit it but had to go for a few minutes so I saved it like this. I fixed it now. I don't know why I can't edit your talk page. Do you? Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to . it's 100% open YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone ever make separate subarticles for them? My plot section on Lagaan got severely pruned :( YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Also, a guy has cited a blog on Brett Lee saying he's the new man. lol ! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahid, thanks for your great tweaks to Lage Raho Munna Bhai. I tweaked some of the grammar but it otherwise looks great. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shahid.... long time bud!! How have you been?? I am terribly sorry for disappearing from Wikipedia just like that! I was really occupied with University and work, and hence I had no time to edit on Wikipedia. Just like Blofeld's edits on

I was really missing Wikipedia over the past month but I am glad that I am done with University for now!! Shahid, I was looking through Kapoor's article and noticed that Blofeld had created new subheadings for the career section. I mentioned to Blofeld about whether it would be wise if we shifted the info on JWM from "Turning point, 2004-2007" to "Recent work, 2008-present" which would then result in the turning point being until 2006 and recent work beginning from 2007 onwards. What do you think? Like that, we will be able to accomodate the JWM image into the new category, and therefore have one image in each section. What do you say?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid, I noticed that you removed an imporant sentence from the Asoka paragraph about the film having a strong international release. I think this is a necessary addition to the article, which is important, and the source provided clearly indicates so. Furthermore, other important sources like this also explain this. Don't you think that it should be added back? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahid. User:Karanacs one of the FAC reviewers who I asked to look at the Kapoor article is now editing it. Can you leave it until she is finished and offers her thoughts? Regards Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you could eat some Cornish fudge, one of my favourites! It literally melts in your mouth and tastes divine! How are you Mr. Shahid? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever see Little Britain? I just found out earlier that Llanddewi Brefi is an actual village LOL! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid. Its making my life miserable every day because you won't respond and don't want to talk to me and still hold a grudge against me. Part of what kept me at wikipedia is having fun, I;m afraid it has no longer become this and every day I log in I feel like I've committed this great sin in your eyes and am damned because of it. I've always gone out of my way to have fun with you but this has really affected me the way you seem to hate me. I no longer want to edit in this hostile environment. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email. I sincerely hope you will respond. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested that Fritz delete all of my user pages. However out of respect for those who appreciated my work while I was here I will leave the barnstars on my main page as a memory of the kindness some people showed me. Don't think you are the pure reason why I've decided to terminate my Blofeld account it is more the general nature of the community and "policy" in here which I've never liked. I don't feel a welcome part of the community on here and no longer want to contribute in the way I have done only to be read by people who describe it as "clumsy and lazy writing". I know you feel the same way about a lot of people on here. There is now little incentive fo me to bother editing wikipedia, even GA has become ridiculously hard to attain by the ever increasing detail to trivialities and invented flaws. You can keep in contact by email which I'd much appreciate. Perhaps in a week or so when all my user pages are deleted and i haven't returned people will start to realise I'm not kidding. My best regards. Farewell. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is rotten. I don't think DB should equate no GA/FA = uselessness YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were the only one who didn't email me. Have you forgotten your email password or something? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Shahid. I wish you and Rahul the best of luck with the Kapoor article. As it stands it seems difficult to see how the article can meet the satisfaction of people like David Fuchs. However much you work on an article people will always find faults (and invent certain one like questioning sources) so it often feels like it isn't worth the bother as much as I'd like to see all of the core Bollywood articles at FA. There does seem to be a bias against the subject matter too and because they are Indian sources, I completely agree with you. If the FA reviewers such as Fuchs didn't have such a belligerent attitude and genuinely wanted to help promote such article to FA I'm certain it would be possible to do so with minor tweaking by different people. This is why I rthought it stood a chance, but the fact remains that these editors don't want to see this article promoted to FA but were more than willing to find flaws. Rememeber Karanacs said the article was close to FA, but I'm not the sort of editor who is going to spend months addressing minor flaws to reach perfection that FAC reviwers strive for. The is partly due to impatience with the process and partly because most articles between GA and FA are hundreds of times better than most of our other crappy stubs and poorly sourced/written articles and when editors fuss over the tiniest of issues e.g "speculation in the media" or "media specualation" I just think it is ridiculous and that my time would be better spent developing the genuinely poor articles rather than articles which are generally very good but may have minor issues. We only managed to pass the Zinta article because you showed superhuman patience and resolve to promote the article which took an exhausting number of weeks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all!! :) It it not like it is the end of the world. As a matter of fact, I just felt that the article was nominated at the wrong time. Oh well!!! We cannot always control everything in life!! BTW, what happened with Blofeld?? Why did he retire from Wikipedia?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Shahid. I'm quite happy with Judi Dench and I'm glad you like it. Meryl is an interesting challenge, but worth the effort. If any American actress could do justice to Indira Gandhi, it would be her, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility. I'm sure that someone as historically prominent as Mrs Gandhi will eventually be the subject of a biographical film, with the view of presenting it to the world market, and the person to play her will need to be carefully chosen. I didn't realize you've lived in Australia for such a long time. Rossrs (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before continuing to throw around the term "successful" in articles, please familiarize yourself with

Just present the facts, let the reader determine whether or not the facts themselves show that the subject of the article is "successful". Or provide a direct quote to show who consideres the actor/movie "successful" and why.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the whole

WP:PEACOCK

page? "Succesful" is one of the subjective POV words to avoid in articles.

And, yes, PEACOCK and RELIABLE SOURCES are connected: "In some contexts, the fame or reputation of a subject may be an objective and relevant question, better supported by a direct source than by drawing inferences indirectly based on other facts (which would constitute

original research or synthesis

). A sourced statement that the subject is "successful", or the like may be appropriate, particularly to establish a subject's notability in an introductory sentence or paragraph."

If you are going to use a PEACOCK term, you need to have it be directly sourced to someone whose opinion and analysis of "successful" matters and can be verified by a reliable source. However, IMDB is NOT one of the sources that you can use for the direct quoting of the term "successful" because the commentary on IMDB is

not vetted by editorial boards for accuracy and fact checking. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you know IMDB is not relialbe, then why did you return "success" as being sourced by IMDB? The remainder of the "Successful"s that I removed from the article were 1) not in the lede where our guideline says "might" be an appropriate place to include them; and 2) were not directly quoted and tied to any specific expert who had directly called them "successful". -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for the content you add or return to articles. I will give you time for you to remove the

inappropriate "successful"s and appropriately tie any remaining "successful"s to direct quotes from appropriate expects in reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for taking time to review your position and how our policies might apply to the content of the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have his talk page? He wants to talk to you YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,you now that king khan is in the tamil movie Asal. [| See this for more details.] I sawed this news in other websites also. Please can u Edit this in Sharukh Page Under tamil films. I'am User:Br4011. Adminstrators blocked me. Because that i cant do anything Please. 124.43.62.113 (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert this editor, He seems to have messed up the tables on most of the lists. See this Why would he do that? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would have them on your watch list! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yep of course you were away then. It it really annoying though when people make unnecessary edits. They could have filled any of them in but no! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shshshsh or by signature, Shahid. :) Thank you, that means a lot to me that you took your time to compliment me on Brad Pitt's article, I appreciate it. You, and Dr. Blofeld have made my week by congratulating me (don't want to sound cocky), but I have a big smile on my face. ;) Agreed, the "people" from Pitt's FAC seemed to criticize the little things in the article and make such big deals about them. But, what can one do? Maybe shove it in their face when they see me

I'm glad we agree. Yes, thinking about the blue is very relaxing. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well thank you. Should I worry I have a stalker? No, I'm just kidding. :) Actually, I'm flattered someone is checking out my contributions, I thought it was just me. Yeah, an unsuccessful FAC sucks, and this is my second time suffering that. But, I have to look at the bright side and move on and make better progress. Yeah, I'll definitely continue to work on the article, but I don't have intentions on another nomination any time soon, maybe in the future. Right now, I'm focused on other articles, actor's of course, and think I have a better chance with them. But, I'm not sure. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's my bad. Hehe. See, now I'm acting cocky, I can't help it. No, I'm not like that. But again, thank you. Though, I should compliment you for all the hard work you've done. I mean, you've done more than me. :P --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Also, DYK about Nichalp using a sock to write Wikipedia article advertisements for business clients? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. He's been desysopped YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is considered poor form to hide one's sponsorship with a sock. Also it was written down before but people with oversight and CU have access to sensitive info so they aren't supposed to do have undisclosed COI. But the blog post was my screenshot of the original advert. It's been pruned since YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give you 24 hours. Get me reliable sources stating she has not completed her education along with acting. Kensplanet^T_C 10:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid interpretation of

WP:BURDEN. Agree the Burden was on me. As per my edit, the content which I restored was "D'Souza studied at the Apostolic Carmel High School in Bandra and later joined St. Andrews College (Bandra) to pursue her Bachelor's Degree of Management Studies." I have cited the content with a Reliable Source. The source states "Genelia studied at Apostolic Carmel High School in Bandra, Mumbai. After school, she joined the St. Andrews College, Bandra to pursue a Bachelor's Degree."
The restored content has been cited by the source. According to you, I should prove that completing education and acting simultaneously is logical. I need not prove that. I dunno how she completed her education, whether she is a superwoman or from Mars. I just know that content which I restored has been well cited. I need not cite anything else or rack my brains over it. I have relieved my burden by providing a source. So, the burden is on you now. You should provide us a source stating that she has not completed her education and acting simultaneously. Kensplanet^T_C 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, there's one more. Profile of Genelia D'Souza on Nilacharal magazine. Nilacharal is a weekly bilingual (Tamil and English) e-magazine. After browsing through it's reputation in the Press, especially this one by The Indian Express. I have absolutely no problem in considering it reliable. Kensplanet^T_C 04:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there are two dimensions here. Either the magazine must have borrowed from unreliable sources. However, Web resources may also mean they might have borrowed from reliable sources like Interviews, Newspaper articles, etc...It is quite possible they might have borrowed from non-English (Tamil and Telugu), but reliable sources. She has an aura of respectability in the South. There may be so many non-English reliable sources currently on the Web, but they just slip because we do not understand the language. But they also say the data has been compiled by the magazine's journalists. We cannot judge what is reliable or what is not reliable. Reputation of the publisher decides that. So, tomorrow even if a BBC article is inaccurate, we just accept it, just because BBC is very popular. I don't know about others, but according to me it's reliable, even if they have borrowed it from the Web. Kensplanet^T_C 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across several Secondary sources, especially for History articles. I have written 2 History of City articles. If you just take a History book, you'll find that the author never does any research on the City's History. He just runs from library to library, reads other History books, and steals the content from those books. :) Similar to what we do here on Wikipedia. We collect all sources, and write our own articles. But irrespective of whether the author has stolen data from other books, still the History book is considered as a high quality source, just because the author is very reputed. Similar for the magazine. May be the Magazine's research is secondary and not Primary, but if they have borrowed from reliable web sources; then irrespective of being secondary, the reputation of the magazine makes the research reliable. Kensplanet^T_C 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say you are well-versed with the Site, I have no problem in believing you. You are right, the recent sources have to be given more importance than older ones, since recent sources imply more notability of the subject. That's exactly what I have told on the talk. Kensplanet^T_C 18:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was very much interested in BLP articles. But then, I had a very unpleasant experience with a notable person via mail, whose article I was expanding on Wikipedia. Except fighting vandalism on BLP, I hardly do anything else. Kensplanet^T_C 18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was not some actor/actress. It was a novelist. It's a secret :). When I asked him for his exact Date of Birth, he started accusing me that I wanted to misuse his credit card. I was a bit scared that time. Somehow, I told him that it was just for the encyclopedia. First of all, I am expanding your article here on Wikipedia; and then you don't co-operate with me. Go to Hell. Kensplanet^T_C 18:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I had a conversation with one more novelist. He was a bit kind. I requested him to mail me some of his images. He did mail me. But when I told him, all the Images will be under a free license, he refused. I told him "Sir just 1 Image for your article"; he still refused. What's the use of writing articles on people, when they are not willing to help. Ofcourse, this may not be the case for all. Kensplanet^T_C 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mummy and daddy are in Australia at the moment. In a few days they go to Tahiti on a tall ship around the islands. Sound good? And Gordon Ramsay LOL what on earth is all the fuss about? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got any money! Do you think I have several thousand pounds to spend on a holiday? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She actually did that film but it is not listed in imdb. if you type in http://www.amisha-patel.net/gallery/index.php?cat=21 you will get the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.2.103 (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pleasew cite reliable sources? Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shahid... I am planning to completely remove the Don paragraph from Kapoor's article. I think it is quite unnecessary as she only appeared in the Yeh Mera Dil song and had like two-three scenes. What do you think?? Should I remove it?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I remember that. LOL Our first encounter together wasn't off to a good start... but we slowly became good friends :)

Anyways... I am doing fine!! I am currently on my summer break and have finished with my second year of University. From Sept onwards, I will begin my third year :( I am so happy that the strike between the producers and multiplexes have been resolved. Currently, I have only watched New York and nothing else. IMO, I thought it was quite okay and nothing path-breaking. So far... there hasn't been a single good release in 2009 but it looks like a whole lot of interesting films will be releasing in the coming months. What about you?? What films have you seen recently and are looking forward to watching?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you respond to my message?? Are you upset about something?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... How did you guess?? Anyways, I am really looking forward to watch a masala flick and I hope KI doesn't disappoint. It's been a really long while (Ghajini to be exact) since I have seen a nice masala type of flick. Just out of curiosity... do you think Dil Bole Hadippa will manage to salvage Ms. Mukerji's career?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I still welcome to leave a message here?Anyway I gave a South Indian cinema barnstar to

Yeah I agree but I haven't the time to remove the column. Personally I think a section for music score would be more appropriate with Indian cinema. The Tamil lists I'm starting though are breaking up the bloated pages from what Vpraj drew up. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real friends forgive each other. All friends have tiffs when they regret things they've said and lost their temper with each other. I said I was sorry for my over reaction to your reverting but you not once said sorry for reverting me whilst the inuse tags were displayed. It may be trivial to you and you think I am all at fault and you are a saint but doing so showed me a great deal of disrspect which I would never dream of doing to somebody else while they are editing. OK , so you think you were perfectly legimate to interrupt me editing and remove what you thought wass appropriate but you have still not acknowledged that it deeply hurt my feelings and I over reacted as a response. If you were a real friend you would have said Blofeld you were out of order with accusing me of WP:OWN, I am also sorry that I didn't let you finish first. But you didn't. Worse still is the fact you've continued to be bitter about one conflict and have continued to make me feel bad about it and resolved to "never forgive me" despite my attempts to email you many times (you couldn't be bothered to respond even once) so it wouldn't have mattered how many attempts I made to try to get back onto better terms you would always feel resentment towards me. Real friends ar eable to forgive each other for cock ups and move on with their lives. I've said I'm sorry, but I hate the way we can't evne have a normal conversattion with each other any more without you coming up with links and highlighting my supposed inappropriate behaviour. I'm making an effort with you now as I have done over the last few weeks but you continue to remove my messages and send me negative messages so what can I do with you? If you genuinely respect me and gneinely believe I am a decent person inside and worthy of having as a friend then please put this behind us. One thing I misjudged for sure it that I thought a warm-hearted guy would not be one to hold grudges and feel bitter still many months later. I do think you should lighten up with your reverting I've said what I thought, you;ve also said waht you think about me and my redundant edits many of times. I will persist in restoring this until you email me and we can sort things out properly without other people reading. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't the ability to forgive people. Why do you keep restoring a link? What good is it making me feel worse about something that happened in the past? Why can't you move on? If you really were going to forgive me then why didn't you contact me? No Shahid, the history of both our talk pages suggests a very different story that we actually used to get on very well and enjoyed sharing conversations about our interests and passions and felt a lot happier on wikipedia doing so. I honestly thought we were good friends before you left wikipedia, its been awkward since you returned. If your time on wikipedia is far better without having people to speak to and having a laugh that it is your call not mine. Just have a serious think about how we used to enjoy converstations on here and whether it is worth blanking it forever. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice to discuss the latest Bollywood films and latest films and actresses with you like we used to, i'll leave it up to you if you ever want to speak to me. I just don't know what I can do as you think I'm this dreadful dire person who has committed the gravest of all sins. Do you throw other friends away because of one major falling out or does it show a stronger character to admit being an arsehole and moving on and having fun? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know this but back last year I was seriously considering buying you this to be deilvered on August 15 on your birthday. I even looked to see how much postage to Aus would cost and everything but I'm pretty strapped for cash at the moment, if I had have been on a full income I wouldn't have hesitated to buy it for you as a small token of my appreciation of you. I know it would have made your day to receive that book and I would certianly not have considered buying for anyone other than someone I considered a friend. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am really sorry I hurt you and don't like it when I do. I just know that inside you are really good warm-hearted decent person which is why I find it hard to have nothing more to do with you and to feel resentful. I am a passionate person so sometimes I overreact and say or do things I deeply regret and I am very sorry about the way I said some of the things I about you but you know that I think think you are a top bloke in reality otherwise I would not have bothered with you, seriously mate. I certainly didn't mean to misjudge you, but I know you said you were encountering a lot of stress, I also didn't mean to invade upon that and assume things. I genuinely would have bought that book if I had have had the money because I remembered how much it would have meant to you, I think it would be an awesome book and you;d have nejoyed many hours readin it from cover to cover. Take care, have a break or whatever but just remember that yes I can be an arsehole at times and accept that despite my positive aspects I am human like eveyrbody else and have some flaws and can be nasty if I get angry. I sincerely mean everything I say here and it is often difficult to say what you mean online. All the best, but please don't hate me and I think things would be far better as they were before and much happier for both of us on here.

Blofeld. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue, I like blue!!! I also like green, and Indian actresses in green dresses. Do you comprende? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]