User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 30

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just a friendly reminder that you've performed three reversions in the

Buddy... how come you didn't respond to my last message? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 13:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what happened to the Zee Cine Awards this year though I think they will probably continue giving out the awards the following year. Stardust Awards are intended mainly to recognize new talent but since they also give out awards to existing actors, I think it is safe enough to include it along with the other awards.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen Kaminey yet though I hope I will be able to watch it this weekend. As for who is going to win the "Best Actors" awards, it is too early to comment. There are still quite a lot of films expected to release in the coming months. However, if I had to pick one, I think Shahid for Kaminey is a very strong contender (based on the reviews I have read about his performance). This year, none of the actresses have delivered a good performance. Looking forward to see a lot of films in the coming months. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not upset! Why would you say that?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow and steady wins the race!!! :D -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shahid... I am kinda confused about something. User:Legolas2186 indicates that the "other work" and "in the media" sections on Kapoor's article should be merged with her career section and not kept separately. Do you think that it is a wise idea or should we leave it separately?? What do you say?? I am really confused!! :S -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I agree with too though I think that his idea about merging the persona life with her career is definitely not a bad idea. Upon reading, the new version, I though that it did flow well with the article. All we need to do is tone it up a bit. What is your view about merging the personal life with her career?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is inappropriately cited, as the comparisons was made in the context of plagiarism claims. If you noticed, it was already under the "Accusations of plagiarism" subheading, which was already on the page since a while back but removed without proper reason given. AS for a reference for each point made, I could actually just reference the film since its whats clearly shown on screen, though thats a bit redundant given that its already on the film page..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahid. I don't believe we have met before. Well I came to know of your work on the Zinta article while being asked to help on

Thanks for the wonderful reply. I understand your point of view. However my main concern regarding such sections has always been the amount of undue anchorage given to every relationship or flings that the person has. Can every relationship possibly be notable? I don't think so. Hence after a subsequent time this section becomes an addition point for gossips and rumours also. For someone like Kareena, the relationships she has are mainly with actors, ie someone within her community and field of work. Hence I believe that will come as a part of her biography which deals mainly with career and relations which has come to her as part of it. They, I believe, are inseparable. I also realised that in case of Zinta or Jolie, my proposal wouldnot work, since her relation with Ness is something totally discreet and doesnot fall within the main biography. Also Jolie's relations with Pitt and adoptions and hunaitarian work are separately segregatated from her main career. Hence the format I presented for Kapoor

Madonna and Janet Jackson will also not work here. However, may I request you to tweak it with the format I presented for Kapoor at my sandbox? Just a request:) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. He was the one who requested for my comments regarding the article. After I proposed the merging of personal life, he was interested alongwith User:Classicfilms. Hence I prepared the draft in my sandbox. Let's see how he chooses to incorporate my comments from the draft and how it progresses in FA (which I feel has become too much of monopoly). Hope he doesnot get discouraged there as a lot of snarky comments are given by those people there. I'm sure you must have gone through hell while promoting Zinta. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I faced this user while promoting "

Raaz - The Mystery Continues to GA but it failed. That's why I moved to all the music related articles. But since I have grasped music GA's now, I wanted to work on this one again. Any pointers? :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed you removed my addition of {{IndicText}} on Amitabh Bachchan. The article does contain Indic Text (in his Hindi name), so it probably should contain that template :\ GSMR (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and users on operating systems (like windows 9x) or web browsers (like the firefox that ships with slackware) that do not render indic text correctly need that warning. GSMR (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special rendering additions are required for operating systems and browsers that do not have inherent support for the viewing for Indic text, and there are people who browse Wikipedia and have such operating systems and browsers. See
    WP:COMPLEX. That warning should appear on every page that has an Indic script in it, and Amitabh Bachchan is one such page. GSMR (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I've restored the template. It's not in any way controversial to add a notification for readers that the article contains uncommon fonts. I don't see why it was removed in the first place. Jafeluv (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shshshsh. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you hadn't removed the template but moved it to the bottom. However, according to the documentation, the template should be placed at the beginning. Could you move it back, please? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think it definitely should be included, to inform readers who might not be aware why certain fonts are not displaying correctly. Placed at the bottom, though, the template loses much of its usefulness because a reader only sees it after scrolling down the article. How about including a smaller variant of the template, without the image? The syntax would be {{IndicText|image=}}. Is that better? Also, It could be placed under the infobox if that looks less distracting in your opinion. What do you think? Jafeluv (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a few FA's that contain Indic text, and it looks that you're right. Many don't use the template at all, and when it's used, it's sometimes used at the beginning (examples: Adi Shankara, Flag of India), and sometimes at the end (examples: Darjeeling, Delhi). So I guess it's all good. Take care, Jafeluv (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I was the last one who sent a message! I thought you didn't like my new account!! Hehe, I've been extremely busy, I really have!! How are you amigo? Can't believe it is September already.....

Nope, not interested in adminship, I am supposed to be a humble monk in the Himalayas! In fact with my new account I hope to attract much less wiki drama and to avoid people hating me because I happened to create stubs in addition to my content work on here... Anyway you said about liking me writing articles, well this is what I do now! Check out

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page [1]. Unless the editor in question is a sock of an indefinitely blocked or banned editor, then this newly registered account cannot be a sockpuppet account per se. Since I know next to nothing about Bollywood content (well, other than watching

I hope you are reverting changes by agreeing to the facts. Please read the following.

FYI.Best awarded Film Pulijanmam is released in year 2006 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1102308/). Not 2007. No award has been given to 2007 films yet.

Award is declared on the year 2008. Pls read following sentence in the given URL(http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008061159891100.htm&date=2008/06/11/&prd=th& ).Date:11/06/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/06/11/stories/2008061159891100.htm "Do you agree with this? Now couple of points to make you clear. 1. Award declared on the year 2008. 2. Film pulijanmam is released in the year 2006.Being these are the facts, where does the year 2007 comes? It should be either 2008/2006. I hope you got it. Many people are unaware that 2006 film awards are given in the year 2008.In 2007 no award had been declared becaue of sue. Let me know if you have discrepancies.

I am reverting your changes

-thanks vijesh --Vijesh (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Can you discuss your reversions on the

Nahiin dost... I still haven't watched it yet!! I have just been really busy this past month :( BTW have you seen this yet?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinta mentioned in one of her recent interviews that she doesn't just appear in an item number but she also plays an important role in the film. This means that apart from the song, there will also be a possibility of seeing the two ladies act together. :D I am really looking forward to seeing the two of them together on screen after a very long time. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this film is released in the year 2006 NOT 2007. Please read by earlier mail again. -thanks vijesh --Vijesh (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly does 2007 represent? released year/award given year? And again todays award is given for 2007 film and given this year. so why do we give 2008 as kancheevaram?

We should not give wrong information to readers. Thats what I meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijeshchandran (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dear shahid

"If a film was released in 2000, and the award was given in 2002, the year still should be 2001 - it's the standard" what standard Shahid. Forget about standards. Standards are not meant for giving wrong info. If someone wants to know the year in which this award is given/the year in which this film released, they are mislead. 2008 is nowhere related to kanchivaram. Its released in 2007 and award is declared in 2009. All this happened because of court issues. Just for the sake of uniform year in table, we should not give wrong info to readers. Many people think wiki is last word of knowledge. So please tell me if you are agreeing. If not I would like to know the exact reason for non-agreement. -thanks vijesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijeshchandran (talk • contribs) 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ever seen

"Turn Mile" the song. Is that a new release? Hey see what I mean compare this to this. Definately a resemblance, it seems they have exactly the same shape face and build, Catherine just has a darker tone..

LOL. And lot's of people thought I do "absolutely nothing to improve the content of wikipedia".... Its gone from 16kb to 82kb and counting!

Megan Fox has definately had cosmetic surgery to look like Angelina Jolie. If you've seen how she used to look to how she looks now. She used to look quite sweet and innocent, now she looks wickedly hot in an Angelina type of way. I thought she looked hot before now she looks scarily like Angelina did in the Tomb Raider days. I think she's hot, but she is way to up her own arse and self-obsessed and probably quite a nasty person, much more than even Jolie.

Jolie's much hotter I think because she is genuinely an intellgient person and good actress, Fox has always been a wannabe and has only got where she has because of her looks. Plus Jolie actually does care about other people around the world and doesn't focus on her own looks ALL the time like Fox does.

Yeah seems I was right about Fox being a stuck-up beeatch. Check out this. Obviously the director doesn't want to admit too much because they are only using her to win audiences and earn money!

Check out this on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-Qx_qsAla0 Bad ass 80s rock. Love it. Especially from 2.16 onwards and 4.00. I get chills between 2.33 and 2.43 and 4.00 and 4.10. Check it out.

YellowKid64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

YellowKid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your assessment of the sockpuppet. I am almost sure that the just-created Imranazir and Blackpeacock are other puppets. Also plausible are Zareenkhan, 117.96.141.69 and various other IPs. Let me know if you need help with this one. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. My last two pages of contributions has been reverting this persistent vandal's attempts. I'm sure everyone is pretty irritated. Anyway, in case you're not already aware, a sockpuppet investigation has been filed against him/her here. I encourage you to add your two cents given that you have more experience with this user. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sock in question has reappeared on 123.237.189.42 Nirvana888 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks Shahid - hopefully this measure works for the time being. I also am concerned that he has egregiously used multiple IPs to revert in the past and this might occur again. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid, do you think Pistavista (talk · contribs) is a sock. His editing pattern and modus operendi seem to suggest this could be the case (especially his asinine editing comments followed by "!!!!!!!!" similar to one of his IPs: 123.237.185.254 (talk · contribs). Let me know what you think. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Thank you for reported the account. Yes, it seems that the possible sock is no longer POV pushing so that is fine with me but if he comes back then intervention might be needed. I have not come across any other suspicious activity but I'll be sure to let you know if I do. Take care. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]