User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld~enwiki/ArchiveOct2007

Hey, your right. Im just gonna leave it, I've got nothing to say to that user. His true colours have come out and I don't need to deal with him anymore. Im gonna work on the Bollywood film task you gave me, they are quite deprived. Should get it done, in the next few weeks. Regards. -- Pa7 08:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its only now that I saw what you wrote, Maxwell is so pretty, sorry was pretty! I did not know she was the original Moneypenny? Hmmm, interesting. OK, owner of Mr. Bigglesworth, Im off to uni, I'll sort out the film pages soon. Feel free to give me any suggestions on pages that need sorting out. Regards. -- Pa7 09:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I got the laugh mmmmooooooooooaaaaaahhahahahahahahaaaaaa!! LOL! -- Pa7 22:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much for the BARNSTAR amigo!! No words can be used to show my gratitude! --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Blofeld! I've a question regarding the formats of references. I was looking at Angelina Jolie's article, which in my opinion is one of the best articles on Wikipedia and was confused about something. Why're there two different dates on the ref? One is a "normal date" and the other one is "accessed." What are the differences between the two?? Could you please let me know. Thanks --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 18:50, 03 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Okay!! Thanks! But is it necessary to include the date it was found and placed on Wikipedia. LOL Most of the refs were placed long time ago and I am not sure when they were placed. Is it just okay if we just included the date it was posted on the source site. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 18:55, 03 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 19:03, 03 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I forgot about that. The image doesn't look bad! Good Job! BTW do you know how to remove the watermark out of the image that is already there [1]. Your image is good too but if you can remove the watermark of that one, than that one is better. If you can't the one that you showed me is good too. Whatever is convenient for you!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 20:29, 03 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways thanks for trying. The image that you cropped looks good also. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 21:10, 03 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warning me about the screenshots as well as the compliments for Kareena Kapoor's article. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blofeld, I was just wondering if you had any luck so far in discussing the task force move to the Indian cinema project yet? And if not, what are your thoughts on how to approach the matter? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100 percent for it. Count me in. Universal Hero 17:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good suggestion. As long as more participants are willing to help out and get the time to better the articles, then I support your motion. -- Pa7 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Like you said, there are not many participants taking part, but if this allows more people to take interest then you've got my support. So yes, count me in -- Pa7 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quiero darte las gracias otra vez por el premio que me diste... Esas cosas me emocionan mucho!

La organizasion de Wiki project Indian cinema es estopenda mi querido amigo! Gracias por procuparte por nuestras peliculas de India. Sos el unico quien de verdad se procupa por eso y esta travajando y quire alludarnos. Yo no tengo las indicadas palavras decirte quanto te aprecio por tus enfuersos.

So, what do you think about my Spanish? I meant everything I wrote. Thanks really! Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to do some code parsing first before I can give you an exact answer, but don't worry - I haven't forgotten about it. Girolamo Savonarola 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would very highly recommend NOT doing any moves until we've resolved the banner issues. I don't want any issues dangling - it could potentially cause a project war. Girolamo Savonarola 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the proposed plan? Universal Hero 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes count me in! You have all my support for that! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of one moment. You want to move it? Mmm but I think there is no need to move. I think there would be no problem if we just copied the same version. Bcoz I don't want to lose out project's uniqueness... --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it wouldn't be a project for itself: "Wikiperoject Indian Cunema. I thought, we can we can move it and redirect, and then the page will remain as Wikiproject Indian Cinema and there will be another page under Wikiproject films. What do you say? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead! I'm fine with the changes you've done on Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema and I support them. I am not really sure about moving to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force See what others have to say --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the page will not remove any of the privileges that it currently enjoys - the only major change would be the article name. However, it does have distinct advantages of removing the need to spend extensive time on project administration overhead, as well as incorporating the WP Films project directly - which means more potential contributors from the WP Films project and full access to their already-developed departments, such as Peer review, Assessment, Requests, Style guidelines, templates, etc. In any case, the Films project already claims scope over all Film articles, so it makes little sense to have a separate WikiProject which is a subset of WP Films, especially when Films has developed a maturing task force hierarchy. And all Indian cinema members would become Films members, so it's less of an annex and more of a merge in that sense. But otherwise, the day to day operations of the project will not change much - it will still have a large degree of autonomy, and be able to spend more of its time working on the articles within the project scope and less time on the WikiProject structure, while having more resources and users at its fingertips. Girolamo Savonarola 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest note. I am glad you are persisting with the Tibetan subjects - so little solid information is available to most people about Tibet, its geography and history - and the culture is under such heavy attack - that I think it deserves all the attention we can give to it. BTW - I really enjoyed your article on Aaron Sapiro - I had never heard about the legal case against Ford - very interesting!! I nominated it for a DYK item only to find that - after I wrote it, you had self-nominated the article. Anyway, I hope it gets up. All best wishes from the Land of Oz. Cheers, John Hill 22:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:RandallHopkirk25.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YEH!!!! You know, she is often cited by media as the most beautiful or at least appears in top ten! I see the other user tries to inflame you against me, please don't believe her. I won't talk about her here, just like I hope she won't! I'll create now some pages, I'll start with Deewangee which you requested me for... Don't think I forgot!:) Ps: Why don't you remove all these messages? You have this month ahead and it takes a LOT of place. Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK great! See ya later, regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to inform you about that. Good? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Bollywood films of the 1980s so I'm going to be there now. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks, we'll see what we can do with this article. The image cat is brilliant, just terrific!!! I've completed four sections for the 80s. So are quite advanced. I'll create later more articles. I have to go now, I'll come later and work a bit on Zinta. The article was quite deserted today. My best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I strongly disagree with mentioning actors in our lists. We can't do that. It is a cruel act of deprivation towards other actors who are not mentioned. I removed names: [2] --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say this user is doing a bad work. There problem another. Who decides the main characters? You? Me? this user? Not at all. There were much more stars. I'll take it to RFC if I must. What with Zeenat Aman Rakhee Rishi Kapoor Dimple Kapadia Jaya Badhuri Parveen Babi Randhir Kapoor Sanjeev Dharmendra Vinod Khanna??? There are tons of additional ones. Adding actors it's merely a POV. It is very well written, but it is a POV. It will cause to very unpleasant removals and additions by POV pushers under several IP adresses. Not good. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case - it's not good to compare Bollywood with Hollywood. Bollywood makes much more films and in those times there was no end to films made in one year. I gave you a full list of successful actors in that point of time. Would you add the full list to this intro? No! I think saying that a new culture have enteren in that point of time is quite good and no need to mention actors. I admire User:Zora who is the best user Wikipedia has ever known, and as per her you can see that she did the same. [3] --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are friends, How can you think something like this about me?:) I'm talking about the names in the intro, (where it was written Rajesh Khanna and Bachchan starred in the biggest hits of the decade) not the content in tables. I've also provided a link regarding my removal.diff. How can I request for its removal in the tables when one hour ago Iwas adding actors. LOL. Sorry if I offended you for a while. You misunderstood. I would never spoil your hard work. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of her! She was not rude! She was the RUDEST on Wikipedia!!! He he. Really! She was fighting every user who is a POV pusher. That's because of her dedication that the Islam article is a FA now. She was not willing to enforce her own opinions, she was arguing to death. She did not belittle any of the IP users and was fair with every one. You must have heard of her rudeness more than once. LOL. I get that. She left Wikipedia cause she felt bad with the mess. Look why she decided to leave [4]. I just hope she comes back ASAP. Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:

• What do you think about this new Heaven on Earth (film)? Zinta stars in a canadian film of Deepa Mehta.
• How can I get a full list of films? I mean, those we don't have here. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK! LOL I mean what do you think about the aricle? I created it two hours ago... As for Zora. She was rude but still fair. [5]. Wouldn't you be rude in such a funny situation? LOL. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh but that's actually films of the 90s in general. Isn't there some way to find a detabase to look for Bollywood only? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how can one recognize a Hindi film among these titles in this so long list? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

great great LOL!!! How did you find "titles with Hindi dialogue"? Where did you enter? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh got it thanks! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's really great. If I find images, I will contact you. Our project is gradually flourishing! There is only one editor who stands behind this - Thank you! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I know, I have it on my watchlist :P!! You ferequntly pop up on my watchlist! You're editing so much on Bollywood related articles... BTW, do you watch some pages? I'm doing that cause there is a lot of vandalism on these pages. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there is nothing wrong in editing Bollywood pages, at least that't what I think.. You're doing a great work... --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice introduction for the talk page! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, OK...:) --Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm going through some WP:FAC and lending my support to some of them... it's nice to see good article and giving your opinion. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with my questions but I wanted to ask you. What do you think about the third para in Zinta's intro ("After a number of .... of this generation.[2]). Does it sound good? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU for the help on Preity's page! I've seen the Ranbir Kapoor image. It looks really great. Are you removing all these watermarks for yourself?

That's a real pleasure seeing images on almost every Bollywood article. That gives people more notice of our stars, how beautiful our ladies are, how western and modern Indians are today. People use to think that Indians are old-fashioned. That's true, We do have our traditional and ethical values, but still. It's really great, thanks. Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I'm happy you noticed this. Bollywood actors have much sense when it comes to clothing. Colours have always been an important part of choosing a garment. My mother is crazy for Saris. She will never buy a Sari if she doesn't check the material, the variety, the quantity of blinkers etc. LOL... --Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a Sari is such a fitting garment for an Indian woman, and even for a woman in general isn't it.. It can be worn in different methods and it. I like when Preity wears Saris. She is so beautiful. It gives her a very captivating grace. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really it'd be funny if we inserted images from Bollywood blog into their articles. You know, she was at the 2000 Filmfare Awards and presented the best actress award to Aishwarya Rai along with Shahrukh Khan. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image looks really great but perhaps too dark. Is there any way to light it? It would be great. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Shahrukh Khan looks bad and stretchy as if it was stretched and pulled from its sides. Could you please clean one of these images [6][7]? Thanks, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current image in the info box is horrible! LOL! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stop laughing man! Such a horrible image LOL you're so funny;) Thanks for removing the image from the box, it's a good act cause Khan would be offended if he saw that LOL!! Thanks for working on that! The other one looks way better, however I'm not sure it's free even though me being the one who uploaded it. Thanks, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL yeh. Nice image, I hope it'll be permitted.. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no, red links are ugly for the pages and every FA or whatever criteria says that. I'm mainly removing them from info boxes and texts. In infoboxes, there is no matter if the link is red or unlinked. In both cases it will be clear that such page doesn't exist and needs to be created. In the body text, IT IS NECESSARY cause they're ugly to the text and actually:

That's why this format does exist at all.

I'm not removing red links from filmographies. So I don't see the problem, and this is a major clean-up for every page BTW, and I like to see the result. It is pleasing to the eye. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite shocked with your last message. When I firstly read your message I was about to understand that my edits are nonsenses "stop removing so many red links". As for the capital letters - I'm sorry. I don't respect nobody here as I respect you. I didn't shout, just wanted to emphasize the matter. This "I noticed you do it to several people" was also shocking and I think unnecessary to write. Anyway, sorry. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's EXCELLENT WORK (now I'm really shouting LOL;)), I'll make the filmo (and I've never removed RL from filmos). Just a question, I see the plots are coming from IMDb. Is it permitted? I would also like to add it if that isn't considered a copyright violation. Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sergei Bodrovjr.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dmytro Yavornytsky.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Firstly, It's me that needs to apologize to you for putting you in the middle of this mess. I know it must have been difficult especially cause you know me and that other user. It doesn't matter now, I've said whatever I needed to to that user, Im sure he's done the same. My grandma used to say don't dwell on the past. I recently lost someone close to me in my family, it makes you realise that life is short so live everyday to the fullest. What's done is done, so time to move on. I went back to university today, and I've already got an assignment! Its a photography project and I have the whole term to work on it!

They say OLD IS GOLD!! Your nan must be fit as a fiddle! I read a newspaper article on Lois Maxwell today, very interesting woman. Ive never seen a Bond film featuring her, I've mostly watched Pierce Brosnan as Bond, James Bond!

Thanks for your kind words. I'll try and get the other pages sorted ASAP. I've got an idea to pass by you. How about including a short paragraph which says what types of films are being made at that time. Right now it looks like a list, but I think some writing with references would be good. What do you think? -- Pa7 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that other user can do 1980s, I was working on it now then got your message. I'll try and work on the rest and the opening paragraphs. Kind regards. -- Pa7 16:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's brilliant! So basically any image uploaded will go straight to that page, at least its more organized. -- Pa7 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, I've added an intro to Bollywood films of the 1970s, the problem is I do not want to go into too much detail because that's what the main article Bollywood is for. Ive added the emergence of rising stars, playback singers etc. Should I write on films that made an impact eg Sholay which was a huge flop but every Indian on the planet has seen and spawned a rather crap sequel? -- Pa7 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added the top ten earners according to boxofficeindia.com, Im trying to find a website that will give me a list of the acclaimed ones but all I get is the big earners. There aren't many missing, we can fill them up momentarily. I hope the page is good so far.-- Pa7 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did the World Cinema template, WOW! You've worked damn hard on the film pages/templates etc. Choreography etc is an important aspect of cinema, but I feel it should be limited because everyone knows that a lot of people make the film the way it is. Like I'd add the producer, music directors etc. I dunno, what your take on this? -- Pa7 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe we'll have to have a discussion about what is included. Hey, I found this ImDB link [8], that would make it much easier to add the film on the list. I'll get started right away. Im glad you like the page :-) -- Pa7 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im glad Mr. Bigglesworth loves it! I've found a better link which just lists Hindi films by year [9]. Im gonna go by this one. Yeh your right, gives us a good framework to create articles for the reds and makes it easier or readers as well. You've done a really good job in creating these lists. Well done. -- Pa7 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I just realised I posted this message on my talk page! I like the orange, it itensifies the whole Bollywood theme. No problem, happy to help. Gracias mi amigo! -- Pa7 18:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good good! I really don't mind. Im doing the 1970's film list first and Im at J so far, so yeh Im doing several at a time. There's 83 on the ImDB list and Im at 35. Then I'll move to 1971 etc. That fine with the 1960s page, go ahead and I'll get started on them after I've finished on 1970s :-) -- Pa7 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate! Yeh, I find it easier adding several at a time. Are you using the IMDB list for 1960s. Luckily there all in alphabetical order. On on number 59 on the film list - 1970. Regards. -- Pa7 19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI! I've finished the 1970 films but when I added it to the table something happened, I've got it copied, so if I paste it on this page can you fix it or something? Or I can paste it on my talk page? Its up to you? -- Pa7 19:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pa7 (talk • contribs)

Brilliant, I'll get started on 1971 tomorrow. There are a lot of red links, but I think these can be sorted or pages can be created for them. You've done some great work today my friend. Keep it up. -- Pa7 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! That's fantastic, so basically any image uploaded from bollywood blog, you'll be able to get rid of the watermark. That will make the image uploading task much easier. Yeh, I'll tell you which images needs the touch up. Im gonna get started on the 1971 films. There are loads on the IMDB link. Was the link useful for you? Im trying to find a better one but I think IMDB is the best. I also noticed that the intro was trimmed down, for the reason given on the article discussion page. I'll try and expand it somehow. Regards. -- Pa7 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK, there's no rush. The image looks fine. There's too many films! Im on number 40 on the list right now, Im taking it a day at a time. Guess it shows how many films Bollywood churns out each year. Hopefully (fingers crossed!) 1970s should be done by this week. Then I'll start on the 1960s. I think the older films as in 1930s/40s will be easier because not many films were produced then. Regards. -- Pa7 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! Yeh I've joined the project. Its really good, gives us a chance to broaden the horizons, and possibly get people involved. Im gonna try and finish the film pages. Regards. -- Pa7 16:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Im glad to know that your happy with your bald head! In my opinion, Bollywood is the best but that is just based on my personal experience. I've never watched a Argentenian film, I've watched Chinese flicks like Fearless and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (amazing!). I think the project is brilliant. With so many actors and actresses in the world, at least we'll know who needs working on. Also, as said, more participants! Its going very well so far, the Bollywood 1970s page is nearly finished. I aim to get it done by next week, then I'll work backwards from there going to the 60s, 50s etc. I actually wanted to ask you something. Some users have put little notes referring to the film like Raveena Tandon's debut film etc etc etc. I really don't agree with this because its the film that's important, not the actors. I think putting the fact that Mother India was India's official entry to the Oscars would be better. Do you have any suggestions on this? -- Pa7 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rightey oh! Will sort that out after I finish the film list, or someone else can do it. Thanks a lot, Kind regards. -- Pa7 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kikuchi Shunkichi.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel as improving South Indian films is high on the agenda, that you adopt a website as you did with bollywoodblog.com to make images fair. A possible website is hosuronline.com or sify.com. Universal Hero 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for enquiring. The only problem is that I know some, but they leave prints of their watermark eg Kollywoodtoday.com / Behindwoods.com / Nowrunning.com . And also as Bollywoodblog have started to leave their print on the pictures, aaren't we allowed to use them on Wikipedia? Universal Hero 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped Image:Alka Yagnik.jpg. Pity about that watermark. She has such nice hands.

On bot tagging, yeah, I understand, it's a pain, especially if you upload a lot of images. But I'm thankful for the bot tagging. They could just delete the image outright with no warning, and that would really suck. This latest round of tagging seems to be targeting images that don't specifically state the copyright information, and that's what tripped you up on the Randall and Hopkirk screenshot. Although you give the source, you don't list the copyright holder. Who holds the copyright on Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)? It's probably ITV or whatever the production company was. So along with listing the source, just to be safe, say something like "copyright 1969, ITV". Have a look at Image:From Dusk Till Dawn soundtrack.jpg for an idea of what all is needed.

You'll probably be interested in knowing that more changes are afoot in image uploading (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal). From what I understand the changes will be an improvement, in that the rationale will be a little more automatic and what all is required will be more clearly spelled out. Right now, it's all a guessing game where the rules seem to be changing all the time. — WiseKwai 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a watermarked Image:MallikaSherawat1.jpg hanging about. I added the Bollywood Blog cat to the one I fixed up. — WiseKwai 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key to getting good-looking images from Bollywood Blog will be watching your resolution. Image:Tushar Gandhi4.jpg is about as big as you can get him without it starting to get too blown out and pixellated. He'd probably need to stay a bit closer to the original resolution, at around 150px wide to look any better. What software are you using? — WiseKwai 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the software you're using, but I'll offer another couple tips anyway. For Image:Dildostietcpremiere.jpg. If you can, first convert the color mode to four-color CMYK, then you have more control over the color adjustment. Try boosting the yeller just a bit, until you can just see a difference - not too much - and maybe tone down the red just a tad, again not too much. Then switch it back to RGB. If you're familiar with dodging and burning, try burning a bit in the foreground, where the actress at far right got smacked upside the head with the flash. Just burn in light increments, of 5% to 10%, so it doesn't look obvious. The key to doctoring bad photos is to do it so it doesn't look like anything was done. — WiseKwai 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have Photoshop. Dodging and burning are terms from the old-school days of photographic printmaking, in which while making a print, a developer could cup his or her hands around the enlarger bulb and direct the light to let it "burn" an area of the photo that needed to be darker. "Dodging" could also be done, in which areas that needed to be lighter could be shielded by hands or special tools. Man, it's a lot easier with Photoshop. That Bipasha Basu photo looks fine. — WiseKwai 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! *tips hat* Lugnuts 11:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a purely aesthetic sense, I agree it's a shame to delete the Reece image. However, as we're trying to build a free encyclopedia here, I hope you understand why this is done. As for Kim Jong-il, that is somewhat of a special case, basically due to the situation of North Korea: Kim never appears in a venue where it would realistically be possible for someone to take a photo of him, so we (reluctantly) accept a non-free image of him. Hope this explains things a bit. Cheers --Pak21 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Romero is done. Sorry for the tardanza. Lo había olvidado. Please check, and edit it in a better and propper English. Rohmerin 17:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC) I've nmever tried e-bay. but play.com has got small prices and free delivery even to Spain. I suppose there's a bookshop about Films. In Madrid there's one. I'll investigate. And, yes, I'm terrified about pounds and the cost of..everything in UK Rohmerin 14:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'll check the e-bay up. One film I love has been relesased now in UK Ricordati di me. If you find it as a gargain, buy it. :-) And there's a new Spanish movie that is almost a masterpiece. I'm shock, I saw it last jueves and I did the wikipage Azuloscurocasinegro If you can see it...Highly recommended Rohmerin 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the edits in Los santos inocentes. I can not support your Indian girl because wikipedia says to me: it's 52 kb long, and there's ALWAYS edit conflicts with other people writing. Thisn Wednesday I'll be in London. Great emotion Rohmerin 08:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aaron Sapiro, 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.

Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not watch Saudi films ;). So maybe I can help you with making templates or uploading its covers. Thanks for writing about Saudi Arabia =D--OsamaK 13:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up. I believe at least three people are needed to make it a task force, so hopefully it's a done deal. I'm not sure what your comment about the Australian film category was about. What happened? — WiseKwai 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it needed the article name per WP:NFCC#10c - someone fixed it, once this gets fixed anyone can remove the deletion template. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using the standard template for rationales, just add the parameter "|Article=articlename" with no wikilink. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it tonight - if it's all right, I'll probably turn it into a subst template that converts it into the standard rationale template, like I did with the bollywoodblog template. Then we can have a bot subst all the instances of template usage. Or is the template subst'd already? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're getting help on that one. Take care. — WiseKwai 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that template covers all the elements. Sorry, I was trying to figure out how to modify your old filmrationale template to include the optional parameter, but I'm afraid I'm still much of a template design expert. :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:JohnFord.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Thuresson 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aamdani Atthani Kharchaa Rupaiyaa.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Aamdani Atthani Kharchaa Rupaiyaa.jpg. The copy called Image:Aamdani Atthani Kharchaa Rupaiyaa.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 09:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Shola aur Shabnam, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105394. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the images from bollywoodblog.com are not licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. They are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial 2.0 License. The two licenses are not same. As per WP:CSD#I3, these images classify as candidates for speedy deletion. utcursch | talk 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just noticed the OTRS ticket, where they've accepted Commercial use. Please ignore the above message. utcursch | talk 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, we need these images very much. Cheers! utcursch | talk 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I just noticed. The Asha Bhosle article is on my watchlist. Thanks! utcursch | talk 16:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya!

Yes, I'm still trying to get around to sorting them out. It's proving difficult to find time, but don't worry, i'll defend them to the death if they do go for deletion. I haven't forgotten! Andrzejbanas 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see an article on Battle of Koromokina Lagoon. Could you create it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to start a stub article on it this weekend. Cla68 22:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Fighting Irish That was probably the best thing. I assumed that these pages had no purpose, and were simply a collection of links to each other.James Sugrono_{Contributions} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ernst: Thank you so much for your note. Wow, I have to work fast! I just put the new article on Mes-ag-tshoms in as a "stub" so I could go and have dinner and a bit of a chat with Jo and then I come back to find you have been working on it already!!

There are so many things to talk about concerning the Tibetan emperors and kings. First, there are the many ways of romanising Tibetan names (not to mention all the various names and nicknames the Tibetans use themselves, plus the various Chinese versions). Then, there are the dates - which often vary greatly from source to source; then there are the often poorly detailed and complex succession struggles. I have been trying to insert a range of variants wherever possible - but it is a lot for those of us of little brain to take in!

Now, as regards the use of the terms "emperor" and "kings". There is no scholarly unanimity on this - but I feel quite strongly that the rulers between Songtsän Gampo and Langdarma are really the only ones who can be referred to as "emperors" - as before Songstan Gampo, the rulers were centered in the Yarlung Valley (to the southeast of Lhasa) and only ruled a relatively small area and were certainly less powerful (and less "advanced" - i.e. they didn't have writing, etc) than, say the kingdom of Zhang Zhung in the west. After Langdarma the empire broke up into smaller units or "kingdoms" and did not really become a whole again until the great monastic lineages (particularly the Sakya and then the Gelugpa) began to reunify the country (although their power never really extended as far as it did under the earlier emperors).

Finally, yes, I will try to write up an article soon on the "Tibetan Annals" - which were discovered early in the 20th century in the hidden library at Dunhuang. They have provided invaluable assistance to scholars of Tibetan history - fleshing out and confirming many details in the traditional accounts. We are very fortunate to now have access to the invaluable accounts of the Tang Annals (in French and English), the many inscriptions in Tibet (mostly well translated into English) and the "Tibetan Annals" (in French), some of the Muslim accounts, as well as the more traditional stories (usually Buddhist, and often from the point of view of one clan or another) - such as the various versions of the dBa' bzhed. There are, of course, many, many questions remaining - but at least now (and with the benefit of all the recent attention of scholars - both Tibetan and foreign), it is possible to work out much of the early history of the Tibetan empire with some reasonable degree of historical certainty. (But it sure is difficult to write up in a fair and balanced way sometimes - and very difficult to know how much detail to include). So, please take all I am writing as a work in progress which, hopefully, I and others will continue to correct and refine.

In the meantime, so many of these articles really need illustrations - even just traditional line drawings such as the ones I have included on the early lineage of the Panchen Lamas. There are many available in books - but I just don't have the time to start chasing up copyright permissions - although I have written to the official Kargyu website and asked them for some help. Thanks so much for all your help and encouragement.

It is so wonderful when people express their enjoyment of what you have done! Just today there was a lovely comment on the Discussion page of [Image:Dalai Lama & Bishop Tutu. Carey Linde.jpg]. It was unsigned (from Norway, I think), but simply said: "This is such a beautiful picture." I am so pleased because it was taken by an old friend of mine in Vancouver (who I must write and inform) and I managed to get him to release it into the public domain and then uploaded it and inserted it into a number of articles. Now, hopefully, many people will really enjoy it - Good karma!

I send you my very best wishes. John Hill 10:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We finally got YouTube back in Thailand, so thanks for those video links. Dodgy reminds me a lot of The Who. I don't know much about uploading music samples. At some point, I mean to upload some Cambodian and Thai rock music.

Wikipedia:Music samples seems to have a pretty good description of how you go about it. Depending on the song length, like if it's a real short song, 30 seconds may be too long! Creating OGG files seems pretty straightforward with the Audacity program, which is free to download and fairly intuitive to use.

Your rational template looks good. There's actually a specific, standard template: {{Non-free media rationale}}. It aims to try and simplify the process of creating rationales, and if it's filled in correctly, it should help keep the upload bots from spamming your page. — WiseKwai 14:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, I was traveling a bit... Great article! As for Divya Bharti - Nobody knows whether she was really murdered or not. It is still a mystery. It was such a big shock. That reminds me of Baazigar. In the film, Shahrukh Khan murders Shilpa Shetty in that same way... --Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what are you doing now? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same. Yeh you're definitely right. It's an encyclopedia and their previous looks really matter here. See Bette Davis, she has such a wonderful page. WOW! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well they will never retire. Yeh I've seen the rationale of Davis' page so I try to take is a role model. Thanks, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, hello:) I removed the images. Mmm I think images are quite unnecessary in te Bollywood article (I mean - List of images). There are much actors in the industry, it will be a personal opinion adding only a few of them, and again - an act of deprivation towards other ones who have no images. However, we can create a list. What do you say? Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry friend. I didn't want to offend you and you know that immensely appreciate your work on the Bollywood pages. I'm really sorry. You are wntitled to your opinion, just like I'm entitled to mine. What do you think about raising this in the WP:INCINE project. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know that I like Zinta and Bachchan and all of the actors put there, however, there were tons of popular actors down the years. And what with them? What with the respect they worthy of? That what my pint is.

In case I offended you - please forgive me, PLEASE! I know I'm like a nuisance bothering you every time. I'm not the owner of these pages. I'm a user who has his opinions, and my opinions are just like that - opinions. I'm nobody compared to you and to your hard work. That's why I think it will be good if we raise our concerns somewhere where other editors could agree or disagree with you or me. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey awards are not a good idea in my opinion. Some great actors have never won awards. And if we choose awards - what ceremony will we choose? Filmfare? National? A new problem, and I can ensure that many will disagree with that. Hema Malini for example is the most successful actress in Bollywood, with top grossers almost every year, and critically acclaimed performances. However she won only one award in all her career for Seeta Aur Geeta (A great film BTW:))

One moment, I'm trying to think of something valuable. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Rahul Bose - one of the most critically acclaimed actors in the art cinema area - with o awards to his credit. We do can add names in every period. I didn't want names on the films list just because it's irrelevant there, but I will add names. Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Bollywood#History. There are names there already. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what do you say now? See Bollywood#History, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is undoubtedly the most successful actress in Bollywood ever. She was on the top for years with big hits super acclaimed performances but as I said was not a big winner at the award ceremonies. She was nominated in 2004 for Baghban - oh one of the best films but lost it (To Zinta). Her films are a real classic! I would also like to add now Shabana Azmi and Smita Patil. They weren't successful at the box office but were the most acclaimed. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great work!! Mmm haven't you seen any of Hemaji's films? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeta Aur Geeta is a must see. She has a double role in the film, and won a Best Actress. She was so charming, vivacious, cheeky and funny in those days, just like Zinta is today. Sholay - Which is considered to be the best film of the last 50 years. She played the role of Basanti, and hugely talkitive and bubbly girl. Did You Know?, all Zinta's colleagues in the industry call her today "Basanti" because she's really identified with this character. Apart from that, on the show Koffee with Karan during the rapid fire Hemaji was asked "Who would be the perfect choice for your role in Sholay?". She answered "Preity Zinta" LOL. Let's take it to DYK.;) LOL. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is! In Melbourne there are DVDs of Bollywood films most of which are with en subtitles - among them Sholay. I'll add a table to this guy's filmo now. BTW, when I add Ji - It is not her full name... I don't want you to get confused. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, you're really right! Oh our pages on Wikipedia are seeing an immense progress! That's just great! The Hollywood ones had flickr and we have Bollywood blog. We have some pictures from flickr just like Jolie and Pitt have from BB. A balance, no? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all the best my dear friennd. Thank you! Hey I've expanded the Bollywood#History more. Good night to you also! Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, that's great work what you're doing and the images are terrific. I've added the table as you requested. Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is Mithun. But isn't there a better image of him? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man you're so quick!!! I was going to upload images for Hamara Dil Aapke Paas Hai and then I realized you have already done that! Thanks! BTW, I see some users have really hard jealousy problems and want to ruin your hard work with the Bollywoodblog license. Oh god!!! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW that's really interesting... Where do you check for new articles list? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's really nice. Listen, I've been creating pages these days and noticed that our legendary singer Hema Sardesai has no article here! I started it and am still working on it now... What'd you say about it? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so so so much for your appreciation. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of couese she is very beautiful and her voice is wonderful. She is a brilliant country singer, and I remember her since childhood! I remember that clip "That don't impress me much" where she walks alone in a desert and looks for a guy, and rejects everyone who crosses her way... She is really beautiful there! I also like her song You're Still The One. A pleasure hearing her voice which reminds me a bit of Gloria Estefan's voice. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But she has a bad article! LOL! Hey listen I can't press on the toolbar buttons. I can't understand why they're unavailable! Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great image she is really beautiful there.

I don't know what's the matter with this toolbar. I can't click on its buttons at all. Just can't! Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again do you have an idea why my toolbar doesn't work... It's annoying! Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What annoys me the most is that on other Wikipedia languages, they do work, and here I have no link access to them... Thanks, Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, I have this problem even when I'm not logged. But anyway thanks, Do you frequently use the toolbar? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for directing me to this page. Tell me please, what version of what browser are you using? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your main page is really great. But I think I'll be satisfied with the original one. What does this index do there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me please Blofeld, what do you think about the Manisha Koirala article? I know it's not a high class article but still, I've worked very hard on it... Your opinion is very important. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh you're absolutely right. What's going? I forgot that it's a GA nominee. Really! Just now got that when you said that. I think we must ask someone to review that. I ask you for the Manisha article cause I really worked on it a lot and if you see how it looked b4, you'll get the matter.:-) Yeh I'll try to create some more pages tomorrow. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, OK I bid you too my friend, :-))) Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL nice Dr evil's laugh so OK! LOL;) Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I had already created an article for the film Shola Aur Shabnam months ago. And I just noticed that u have created Shola aur Shabnam as well. Do u know how both of these articles could be merged? Shakirfan 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that sounds a good idea to me - conside it done! Lugnuts 12:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this to the australian project noticeboard - you might wish to reply to it there - cheers

==Australian film categories== It appears the Australian project film categories have been re-arranged without prior talk or discussion or any form of warning - it would be interesting to see why and how such a process occurred - this note will be sent to the re-arrangers to request a civil and full explanation as to how such a process is done without actually going through a noticeboard first - specially when the creator of the categories is unavailable for comment: - SatuSuro 14:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You two guys have the most intriguing photos on your user pages - I could just go on about them. As for categories and sub categories - yeah there are some issues - probably solved by some basic inter project facilitations of clearer communications - SatuSuro 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey other dudes jump in and throw more stuff around - I would have waited until further discussion rather than that - hope it all gets resolved - cheers SatuSuro 00:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way. A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details. Member News Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia New Members Congratulations to our 225 new members	From the Editors The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page New irc channel Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: #wikipedia-en-bio Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up. Contributors to this Issue Psychless (talk · contribs) Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)
Complete To Do List Write an article Expand an article about: a person an actor an animator an artist a bishop a businessperson a diplomat an educator an engineer a lawyer a military person a musician a photographer a saint a politician a scientist a sportsperson a writer Improve an article by: adding references adding categories Review an article Romano Volta • Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle • Answer requests for comments Work on the Portal Portal:Biography Assess an article Assessment requests Unassessed articles Assessment Progress Biography articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Core Other ??? Total FA 35 1,631 1,666 FL 203 203 A 1 131 132 GA 41 8,339 8,380 B 97 39,208 39,305 C 32 167,333 167,365 Start 2 757,154 757,156 Stub 1 1,037,354 1 1,037,356 List 7,909 7,909 Category 2 340,586 340,588 Disambig 8,155 8,155 File 31,724 31,724 Project 227 227 Redirect 3 44,830 44,833 Template 20,583 20,583 NA 505 505 Assessed 214 2,465,872 1 2,466,087 Unassessed 24,961 24,961 Total 214 2,490,833 1 2,491,048 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,814,183 Ω = 5.38
We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Hello, Blofeld, I noticed you uploaded several pictures from Bollywoodblog under a Creative Commons license. As for the Madhuri picture: I'm quite sure it's taken from here [10] and I don't think Caledonian Publishing Limited owns all the rights to it. Also, one of the Rani pictures is copyrighted by Bollywood Mantra [11] and one of the Salman Khan is copyrighted here [12] and Vivek Oberoi's picture here [13]. Of course it would be awesome to use all these pics, but does Bollywoodblog own the copyright to release their pics for a Creative Commons license? Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the rights to investigate the template you made (Template:Bollywoodblog). This template or license is the only kind I cam across, in which you claim the company gave you permission to use their images. I'm having hard time believing this and no, administrators can be anyone online including untrustful people. I don't have to trust administrators if I don't want to. Your trying to force me to trust you because you say you're an administrator. I want to hear what others have to say about this, not what you have to say, you can prepare your argument to those people. You don't know who I am, what if I am the owner of Bollywoodblog? How would you know if I am or not? So please do not remove the disputed tage from the template (Template:Bollywoodblog). If you're telling the truth then what is there to be scared of, explain the story behind how you got permission from the company to use their images? If you are an administrator as you claim, then you should act as one by leaving the disputed tag until the discussion comes to a conclusion.--Hindu-Boar 10:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you were sure that the image you uploaded was free to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of your experience and good judgment (and wicked cool sense of humor) has never been in doubt to me, Blofeld. I was asking because I haven't as much experience and looking at the original provenance of the image, it appears to be a privately held image. Some of the Creative Commons data appears to be somewhat contradictory to me. The Lennon article had someone else upload a non-free image via the Commons licensing, when it was actually a copyrighted image pulled from a Flickr account.

If I could rouble you to take a moment, could you please explain what makes one image Creative Commons free and another not? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I don't understand is that some creativ commons pics aren't free, like the one from the example above. I don't want to set a placeholder image and then have someone pull it for licensing issues. Btw, I appreciate how you incorporated the previous placeholder into the article - sort of like recycling. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the input. Myself, i appreciate the more gamine types, like Natalie Portman, but Slama Hayek is also prety nifty on her pins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a good pic, though it could use some hue and stauration work in Photoshop to darken it up a bit, as Lennon's features seems a little washed out. Good find. Too bad America didn't find Kerry as good a find. Might've spared us 4 additional years of shite. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, been feeling a bit sick but everything is good. I was gonna write you an update on the Bollywood films. Its taking me longer then usual to get the list sorted, but I guarantee they will be done. I did not understand what you meant by splitting the list? Do you mean making a list relevant to that year like Bollywood films produced in 1975? -- Pa7 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im feeling better thanks, unfortunately my cold came when I started university! Dodgy curry! EEEEE!! Hope you recovered :-( Also, thanks for uploading that image of Tabu, she looks lovely. Im trying to expand her career section, she's one of the best actresses around and her career info looks like trivia notes! Hmmm, maybe it would be a good idea to spilt the page, once its done that is. So you've gone for evil dictator look then, coooool! mmmmooooooooooaaaaaahhahahahahahahaaaaaa!! -- Pa7 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL interesting! From no hair to loads of hair! From Dr. Evil to No. 2! Personally I prefer Dr. Evil. His laugh especially: mmmmooooooooooaaaaaahhahahahahahahaaaaaa!! -- Pa7 18:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes definently, the amount of red links were quite shocking but yes it would be a good idea to nite these down and as you said make sure there not missing from the filmographies. No worries, it will get done. Regards. -- Pa7 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! The animation was great, if you can pull that off then that's brilliant. I can't do that laugh, not even close! Hey check out Tabu's page, I've expanded it and added references. If you do have a look, please make some suggestions on how it can be improved. Thanks mate, mmmmooooooooooaaaaaahhahahahahahahaaaaaa!! -- Pa7 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaawwwwwwwww, the image of the polar bears were sooo cute, I'll definently use that one. Im not sure about the embryo of the dolphin but I must say that was good image taken. Yep, I've found more stuff on her family and early life but it's gonna need a lot of work. Thanks for your opinion, owner of Mr. Bigglesworth. Regards. -- Pa7 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see Preity Zinta has gone to GA, good. Mini-me's laugh was cool! Still prefer Dr. Evil, mmmmooooooooooaaaaaahhahahahahahahaaaaaa!! So, how you been? Hope your good and feeling better? -- Pa7 22:12 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Im still feeling sick and yeah I have not had much time to edit either, just too busy! I hope your mojo comes back soon! That's good that the article goes for the A, hope it does well. I've posted some minor concerns on the discussion page, would you mind having a look. I don't want to get in an argument or anything like that but could you address them at least. Im gonna check out the Shilpa Shetty page. I promise I'll finish the Bollywood films soon. Regards. -- Pa7 22:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Im fine with it (Zinta page). It does look like the character! Didn't Eddie Murphy play every member of the family in the film? As in the father, mother etc I loved it when it came out, but absoulutely hate it now. All of a sudden, I wanna watch Austin Powers in Goldmember. I love goldddddd! Classic! -- Pa7 22:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it did seem a bit rushed and forced. I loved the 1999 film, I've only seen half of the 1997 one. I liked Goldmember, but hated Beyonce in it. I think she should just stick to singing. The scabs were nasty as was Fat Bastard. I loved the mole guy. Moley, Moley, Moley!! Moooooolllllleeee! LOL! -- Pa7 22:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! I remember Ali G and his phrases - "Booyakasha", "Respek" etc. My closest mate still says booyakasha and he looks nothing like the guy. I swear someone said it on an episode of EastEnders once, I think it was the bloke that played Ronny Ferreria -- Pa7 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeh, definently! Heather Graham was the best choice for Felicity Shagwell. I remember the part when Dr. Evil named his laser the Alan Parsons Project. Brilliantly executed, LOL! -- 23:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pa7 (talk • contribs)

OMG!!! Yeh I totally remember that stupid song!!! I was such a craze here. Absoulutely ridiculous concept and video. Like you said Jamaica, sheep skin, beaches -- BAD COMBINATION, not to mention really stupid! HAHAHA! Im not a big fan of Shaggy, but his song "Boombastic" really caught up. "Mr. Boombastic, tele-fontastic..." (I think that's the way it goes) -- Pa7 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dmytro Yavornytsky.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:TheBeachdicaprio.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:John Lowe.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No luck whatsoever on the tamil film image issue.....can you give me a template of the letter you sent to Bollywood blog. That'll be tremendously helpful! And is this Indian cinema active contributor thing gonna go forward? with User:Plumcouch's return and all? Universal Hero 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a reply please? Universal Hero 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blof. I thought about that, and I'm now going to work on the Salman Khan page. Following this I'll remove all of his filmo red links (I mean - creating pages). What do you say? Isn't that a genius idea? LOL;) --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another good news, the toolbar works!!! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh she really is! And she is really a brilliant singer as well. I like this song. Best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely, completely understand you!!! Really!!! That's what I was feeling while watching Rekha's or Preity Zinta's films. If you see the film Khoon Bhari Maang, you will understand why I think that Rekha is the most beautiful woman in the world, as well as the best actress ever been. Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeh, I like "Everything I do...". That's one of my favorite songs. I have very fond memories from the times when I used to listen these songs. I wish I could find some images of Rekha from the film Khoon Bhari Maang. She is SO beautiful in the second part, but I just don't know where I can find it. Regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't heard of them, though I do like rock music especially Guns N Roses, Scorpions, Aerosmith (Most of Ballads you know). Tell me please have you heard of Israeli singer Ofra Haza? I read the other day that she was the most popular Israeli singer in the world, and took the second place at the 1983 Eurovision. I've found some cassetes of my father and after making a little research, found out that she had English albums too, with producers like Frank Peterson (who has worked with Sarah Brightman, Sandra, Enigma, Gregorian) and Don Was, and duets with Paul Anka and Iggy Pop. So I really liked her international album Ofra Haza. She died in 2000. So have you heard of her? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh awesome, WOW! Do you know the band Sisters of Mercy? Also a rock band, they have a song with Ofra Haza, "Temple of Love"... (too hard).. So do you know Ofra Haza? You didn't tell me that's interesting whether she indeed was famous in Europe. As I see here 1988 in music#Top hits - she was. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's really great. Listen, the Abbas Kiarostami article is a damn brilliant article! Have you contributed much to it? I must say - You're a brilliant copyeditor! That's why I always come to you for help with the Zinta article! Your writing is a super class. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW that's awesome, I couldn't even imagine that you are the one who is responsible for this great work! Have you seen many of his films? I think you're wasting yourself when you're not writing, cause you have much to give to this encyclopedia, please don't leave me alone with the Preity Zinta, I believe you're the only one who can actually help me to raise it to a featured status. It would be great if you could balance your so hard work on the lists etc and contribute to a potential FA! I really didn't know that you're as great as I realize it now. I want to take it to PR later and I want you to be one of the main editors to advice things to me. The page is rastrained right now, it's a pitty cause one month ago, I was sure that it would get a FA status in two weeks. That what upsets me the most. My best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never, never said that your edits were unimportant, that's actually the opposite. Looking back to what it was without your great efforts Wikipedia seems to be nothing compared to what it actually is today. You're giving so much to our encyclopedia and I'm always updated and aware of every edit of yours, which is always great, and I have no words to describe it properly. On the other hand, you know what my dream is and I actually realised today that the Zinta article doesn't advance. I want it to be a representative FA of Indian actors. We have a filmmaker - Satyajit Ray, a film - Lage Raho Munna Bhai and I want the Zinta article to be in the actor field, because we both know that it is the best article of an actor here, yet not sufficietly good to reach a featured status. My best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in troubles mate. I have a big problem with box office numbers. Could you help me? As per this [14] it is written that KANK grossed 44,50,00,000. How much is it? Do you know? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeh of course, there are Indians everywhere. Bollywood's popularity is increasing more and more. Just a pitty that we can't know how much grossed. These details are important. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh see what I've found. It can help us, no? What do you think? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh but I decided to write it as per crores. See my recent changes. What do you say? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's what I'll do now. I like your suggestions. Another question, what do you think, how should we start every para describing? What should come first - reviews and critical comments or box office info? Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, yeh I see. I hate these bots...:) --Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just went outside to smoke a cigarette. So, you're absolutely right man. As you see one so it's tolerable, but when they come as huge masses, it's annoying! Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god! There should be invented a new format of automatical removal of Bot messages! LOL! Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta is a GA!!!!! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think with some minor touches, we can introduce it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review. I think it's a damn good article, and even the reviewer said "It's excellent" !! --Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So I'll nominate it today after some work, what d'you say?? --Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL yeh I'm doing nothing these days, so I sleep in the day and work in the night... LOL!! I think relationships and misc should be after career, as in Jolie's page, and family background after. What do you say?? I'm so gappy!!! Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"narrowly escaped death twice in late 2004" - We can widely expand it with this. It must be expanded it it the most notable experiences in her life.

And her personal life, I'm afraid to add unencyclopedic content but her childhood is written here: [15][16]. I think it's important to write what kind of a girl she was.

Please tell me, what should and what shouldn't be added from these two links? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW she is so beautiful here!!! Could you get rid of the watermark, but please don't cur her whole body. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's a pitty:( Nevertheless... I'll wait for your suggestions regarding the early life bit. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Blof this image Image:PreityZinta5.jpg is not good we need original ones. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about that? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right! This image is too long! See [17] WOW she has a perfect body. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PreityZinta4.jpg Hahaha LOL! Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you would put this image in the humanitarian work section. It suits it perfectly. So what about this one? [18] Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god I hate that something always has to be ruined. And what with your friend? This guy who fixed the Kareena Kapoor image? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could ask him? Who, knows he can do something. Cause this image is really *ugly* - cause it's too dark and we don't see her body... It's better to stay without it even... Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to deal with content now. As I said, her personal life, I'm afraid to add unencyclopedic content but her childhood is written here: [19][20]. I think it's important to write what kind of a girl she was. So please tell me what do you think? What should and what shouldn't be added from these links and how? Please help...:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh but we somehow can write that she was always with her brother and was a tom boyish girl likes sport etc. In Jolie's page it is really well written. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK thanks for the help see ya later. I'll do it somehow. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought to add it to the PL section in the Marc Robinson Para:

During the break-up, Zinta was offended with the way the media projected it, saying "The media wrote about my relationship the way they perceived it, jumping to their conclusions. After our break-up they made me out to be the sweet one and Marc the bad guy."

What do you say? Does't that sound as gossip? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cause I didn't want to bother you so much with these images. And I in advance wanted to ask him to crop the other image, and you were absent. Sorry I see you're a bit angree. Please don't. I think we have sufficient images. We need only one to illustrate her fitness but I believe the site updates more images. So what do you say about my previous message? I'm now trying to do something with these [21][22] links and add something about her childhood, but I'm really confused. I think we could add at least one para which makes sense. She was influenced by her father and was very close to her brothers liked sports etc etc al of that is importan. Please for give my ugly act and help me with that. I like your writing!!! Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get offended Blof !!! I really trust you more than I trust every other editor here, but I thought maybe you have other program, and he can remove the logo... Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blof, I've got permission from two leading companies with e-mails. How do I notify Wikipedia? Universal Hero 18:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about my new addition to the early life section? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeh, that's really sad. But I still have some problems with the section. I'm concerned about the chronological order of the paragraphs. Should her education notes appear before all the rest? Could you please read the section and copyedit wherever needed? Please! There is no much to the section. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're not doing much today that's why I asked, I wish you a speedy recovery pal! Is it because of eating something which you told me about last week? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeh, What do you think? is it ready for A status? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god are you serious? Offff... LOL! OK I'll send, I'll just format some refs b4. Thanks blof:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but isn't there any other way to remind her best friend in the article? She always, always reminds her as her best friend. Is it still non-notable? Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friend, as I said I adore you're writing. Oh see that, Even here in this 1.5 minutes interview she mentioned Shagun. Look at it, it's funny. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see he really appreciates you. Oh how can it be possible that your name doesn't appear in my section? I'll add you later. :)Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Blof please don't, this image is ugly, blurry, too dark and way darker than in the original one, and it has no relation to the text. I thought to add some screenshot from Kya Kehna or Chori Chori Chupke Chupke or whatever which will make more sense. We have sufficient anount of images for now. Thanks anywayz, best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I felt such a big scream of anger coming from you!!:) I didn't notice your message I just saw the image in your contribs page and thought you have re-uploaded it. That's all. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! WOW that's so great! Pa7 introduced some minor concerns but my watchlist indicates that you commented. I'm going to see. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the ref: "My first ad for Perk chocolates happened purely by chance. I was at a friend's birthday party where I met Kunal, an ad filmmaker. Two days later, he called me saying that he had written an ad script keeping me in mind.

He forced me to come for auditions. Although I was apprehensive, I thought what harm could come from just auditioning - there would be five people there and why would anybody pick me? Only, instead of five, there were 50, and I got selected after saying just two lines with the chocolate in hand."

Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of what you added is career. So it belongs to the career section, doesn't it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing terrific work, but are you sure a modelling section is needed? I don't know... There is not so much to it, and she had not a really rich modelling career. So I think we could shift it to the career section, naming it back career instead of film career, and shift the education stuff to early life, where it actually belongs. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know why I didn't do it myself? Cause I really didn't want to make you feel that your work is not appreciated or ruined. Thank you for doing that. With your brilliant writing I think it misses very few points to reach FA. The reviewer was keen to make it film career cause it dealt with film career, but now we are not enforced to leave it as film career. I have sources for Kapur, I'll show them. See further reading section interview with CNN. There she details her meeting with Kapur. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the interview has one mistake she wasn't 14 at starting modelling she 22... I've seen this interview... Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey in the article by CNN it is said that she started modelling for a catalogue!!! Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Blof, according to this Zinta began her modelling in a catalogue (just to note the age that she mentioned is an error of the site). Here is the quote:

"And this friend of mine -- not this friend of mine -- this friend of my aunt's actually, called up and said 'can you send Preity over? We just want to meet her' and they called me over and what had happened they were shooting this Swedish catalogue and the youngest model had fallen sick, she had got the runs, so they told me 'you're going to be a model' and I had these big eyes and I was like 'really?'. And I saw this gorgeous guy standing there and I was like 'wow, I'm going to model with him', and the next thing I know I was in the kid's section and he was in the papa section and I had to pose with him and I think that's how I started my first catalogue that I did. (LH: The list goes on, I'm sure). Yes, but I was never the pouty kind of model (Lorraine laughs). You know, the sweet, cute kind of model. I was never the hot one (LH: Nothing too sexy, hey?) No, no, I was never in that bracket"

What will we do? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right but actually the quote I gave you comes from CNN and it's reliable.[23] There are just some grammatical errors and typo mistakes which happened while transfering the info, it was a live show with some nice woman Lorraine which Preity took part in. The times of India is a newspaper therefore it's great, but what about the catalogue? Should we add this catalogue stuff? I think that yes! It's really important I thionk cause it shows her in a good light, I mean, she will be shown not only as a bibmbo who appears in chocolate ads, but as a fashion model who models for catalogues. And as she always says, her friends always pushed her to that. In The Times of India, she shortened the story saying that she met Kunal at some party and that's how she became a model and here on CNN it seems to be more detailed. What do you think about merging it?

Apart from that, the main details here are indentical as in other sources. She even details her meeting with Kapur which could be expanded what do you think? I'll talk to you later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you explain where you came up with the material for Michael J. Fuchs? It gives every appearance of being cut and pasted from a Yahoo! TV biography. If it's not freely licensed material, we'll need to start over with it. --Michael Snow 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the possibility that Yahoo might have copied, but this particular site of theirs doesn't involve user-submitted content and doesn't credit another source, as would be expected if they had. The precise version of text they have is one that was only up for just over a month here. Furthermore, it was created here in a format that matches up very closely with the different standard sections their listings use, whereas Wikipedia imposes no such structure. So I'm not at all persuaded that this is likely. I'm much more inclined to think that this was an error you might have made as an inexperienced contributor here, not yet being aware of the importance of respecting copyrights. --Michael Snow 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to replace it with a rewrite, please do. --Michael Snow 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks, I love DYK because it attracts so many other editors to articles that would otherwise go unedited by anyone but me given their obscurity. It is nice to know at least someone at DYK appreciates the work. I do some work in a few other areas to, and the history stuff branches into the rest of the Midwest and U.S. at times. New York has some pretty good contributors who make regular appearances on DYK. But alas, I can not sustain this level of output forever, and the nonstop passive agressive abuse in my direction at DYK has me seriously considering far fewer submissions. IvoShandor 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Zinta2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hema Sardesai, 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't find much info, apart from saying she appeared in catalogues and commercials, there is not much to it. She still appears in ads and commercials, such as this one with Kareena, Shahrukh etc... but her modelling career was too short and she is mainly known as an actress, a performer. Her modelling career was just a little occupation before becoming an actress - it was not a real rich modelling career. I read once an interview of her saying she was not a model, she was modelling but not a model LOL so we can satisfy with what we have now. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Polizeiruf_110.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bearcat 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arizona'31.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 21:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ernst! Good to hear from you again. I just had a quick search and turned up with the following website which has a good brief history of the monastery. If I discover anything else I will certanly let you know. Here is the url: http://info.tibet.cn/en/newfeature/dzongsar/text/t20050613_36403.htm

I have been keeping busy starting articles on the wonderful early dictionary, the Mahāvyutpatti, as well as various early kings and other Tibetans figures including: Ralpacan, Abhayakaragupta, Manjushrikirti, Gö Lotsawa, Yungtön Dorjepel, Sadnalegs, Mangsong Mangtsen, 'Dus-rong Mang-po-rje, and Mes-ag-tshoms, plus adding material and making corrections on a number of other Tibetan-related subjects. However, I am expecting to hear back from my publishers in the next couple of days - it seems they want me to reformat my whole book (which is about 1100 pages) so that it will fit on a larger page size - and, therefore, be easier to bind. I told them about this over a year ago but they didn't think it would be a problems then. If I do have to reformat the whole thing it will take 3-4 weeks solid, very boring work and I won't have time for much else. Tedious in the extreme! Oh well, it's better than publishing it as two volumes! All best wishes, John Hill 02:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no :(. - Darwinek 12:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of my element when it comes to Thai TV. It's all in Thai and is never subtitled, so I hardly ever watch or pay attention to it. Besides, it's about all I can do to keep up with film and other stuff I'm genuinely interested in, so I don't think I'll be able to help. The only thing I can think to suggest would be to check out whoever's been editing the article on lakorn (Thai soap operas) and see if anyone there is able to contribute. — WiseKwai 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language tag says TH-0, which means I speak zero Thai. I guess it is more helpful for Thai people who might be visiting my user page. Even the TV show titles translated into English script mean nothing to me. — WiseKwai 14:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Okay, I've done most of the work now on completing the infrastructure for the Indian cinema task force. I was wondering if you'd be willing and able to populate Template:WPFILMS Announcements/Indian cinema as need be. Don't let the page fool you; click to edit it and it will make sense. These announcement boxes are going to be standard for all of the task forces, which will make transclusion into the project-wide announcement and request sections much much easier. You might want to look at Template:WPFILMS Announcements/Filmmaking for an example.

So back to Australian cinema. I've been thinking about it occasionally over the past few days, and it seems that we really need to hash out some more comprehensive categorization plans en masse for all of Category:Film. If there's a solid structure worked out, then everything else becomes a matter of doing the boring re-cat'ing. I'm not quite ready to start that conversation yet, but hopefully in a short while. Since we're not talking about a huge number of articles (thankfully), it's probably best to let the matter lie for the meantime - if we have a clearly conceived large-scale plan with consensus behind it, that's far more bullet-proof argument-wise.

Hope all's been well otherwise, Girolamo Savonarola 20:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here he goes again... Apparently consensus and precedent aren't enough. I think I wouldn't mind so much were it not for the fact that he doesn't really seem to have much history of involvement with the group when moves aren't being discussed. Girolamo Savonarola 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MargueriteViby.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Help desk#Article Lake Garda. The building says "NAVIGAZIONE LAGO DI COMO". PrimeHunter 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:William Wyler.jpg‎ . The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Podkapova 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!

I see you uploaded that image, then put it on the Lake Como page. Is the muddle in the title or the page? Cheers! —Ian Spackman 20:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for converting Kikuchi's "article" from a substub into, well, an article. I've just come across it on reaching the "ki" area of this: you'll see many items marked "NC" after Kikuchi.

You're very welcome to do as many more of such conversions as your stamina will allow. I can't put hundreds of these substubs on my watchlist (I wouldn't mind if they were there, but I'm not going to put them there), so you may wish to mark the changes -- from either "NC" or "BGSS" to "OK" -- within the list. (The list itself is discussed here and [very gloomily] here, as well as in its own talk page.) -- Hoary 03:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing articles on movies and music is something that can be entrusted to normal people. Only the extraordinary (extraordinarily crazy?) can even contemplate three hundred or so articles on Japanese photographers most anglophones have never heard of. Get on down! -- Hoary 14:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently created a number of pages that link to the disambiguation page at Settlement e.g. here. Did you intend to link to this disambiguation page? Ewlyahoocom 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the article looks impressive for its broad coverage, and I plan on improving it further in the future after several other projects I have in mind. I figure if I'm going to be living here, the article should be good. --Nehrams2020 02:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry I don't know who would upgrade the article's status. Good job on having it reach GA though, and I'm sure it could probably go to FA with some more work. --Nehrams2020 05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the 2007 in film, but haven't worked on it recently. Once I finish my current sweeps of GAs and a GA I'm writing, I'll hopefully be able to finish it. --Nehrams2020 23:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ernst! Thanks for your notes. I am certainly very pleased that the US Congress has given the Congressional Medal to H.H. the Dalai Lama and hope that it will remind people of the awful situation facing people in Tibet and, perhaps, just perhaps, because we are in the lead-up to the Olympics and China will be wanting to present a good image to the world it MAY help get things rolling towards some real changes for the better. However, I am deeply distrustful of George Bush's motives (though if anyone could get through to him it would be His Holiness). I, of course, have no special knowledge - but I would suspect that George W. was possibly trying to paint himself as a defender of religious freedom more to keep the huge religious right in the U.S. backing him. But this is just guesswork - so I won't continue. Hope all is well with you. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill 22:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

The new collaboration for this fortnight is (October 20, 2007 - November 3, 2007) is Diamonds Are Forever (film) Please contribute by editing this article, in an attempt to get it to good article status For more information see the page here or contact SpecialWindler. CHECK OUT THE TALK PAGE, FOR THINGS YOU CAN DO ON Diamonds Are Forever (film) The Living Daylights is currently a GA nominee.

THE COLLABORATION WILL CEASE ON NOVEMBER 6 2007 due to failing standards and low participants. If you still wish this collaboration to run, then work hard in making this collaboration of GA status.

Thankyou,  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  03:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:16 Vayathinile.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Renard99.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hiddenblofeld.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are you?! These days were quite strange without talking to you... It was really boring . Yeh I've been quite busy these days, thus had no time to commit here. I'll fix Dharamji's filmo ASAP. What do you think of Zinta's article? I've had some minor touches there and expanded the career section overall. Should I sent it to A? Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Blof for the image help. I moved that image to the correct film's article. ATm, i'm in a bit of trouble with short future film stubs (scroll thru my TP) Can you help? Universal Hero 16:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the main issue is with WP:NF with regard to future films. Referencing is another issue, but it won't clear up the film notability guidelines for future films because no editing can. Girolamo Savonarola 17:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right! I don't know why Wikipedia allows unregistered IP users to edit here, when 95% of what they're doing is vandalizing the Wikipedia. I think both editors and administrators have much important and significant things to contribute rather than revert their additions/removals or block them. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia - yes. But if anons could not edit without creating an account, would it fail to qualify this term? Definitely not. It is free not because every IP user has the authority to edit, but because every one can freely create a user name and contribute. Therfore I must say, your note is one of the best ideas I've heard today. Vandalism will probably still exist if only registered are permitted to edit, but its quantity will definitely be reduced. I think we must do something with that. Yesterday I requested for Shahrukh Khan's page protection, and it is protected for one week. Best regards, friend. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, earlier on it was exactly like this. It was a bold issue that "Wikipedia is unreliable" because claims were not proved. We now at least have requirement for citations so it improves the matter, but all these acts of vandalism still ruin its progress. Wikipedia is now likely to be a collection of information, but thanks god, copyrighted images and texts are not permitted therefore Wikipedia's articles have its uniqueness. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now listening beautiful ghazals of Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle. Oh that's so great! BTW, Ashaji's article has shown a lot of improvement. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blofeld! You can't even imagine how pleasant is to hear your kind words, I just admire you. You're keenness to improve EVERY article regardless of what it is, whether it is familiar to you or you hear the name of the article for the first time - is unbelievable. Thank you for your help on Zinta's page. Thank you for the image for Hema, and thank you for your existence on Wikipedia. After that, I'll add to the article, Zinta's two brushes with death, I'll add a bit of info regarding her beliefs in god and whatever, and a bit so. I think a peer review could help us further. I'm so happy that I have you to help me with your amazing writing skills - the early life looks good and that's all thanks to you. I'm so busy in real-life, and forgot to nominate it, yet you were there (like you always are) to do that for me. And I'm happy that you are the one who nominated it, because I liked what you have written there, it was a great act of honesty. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you! Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ernst: Thanks so much for your help with the categories in the new article. I hadn't got around to them yet. You are just too quick!!! Cheers, John Hill 02:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tough. I'm the man who lives twice. Seriously though, I will be filling in the relevant pages after this message. Hope to hear from you again. fergananim —Preceding comment was added at 11:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good to hear from you. Are you especially interested in Irish history? Must have a few drinks in your pub, purely for undercover survellience of course. Sorry my signiture is faulty; that partiular key is missing! Fergananim —Preceding comment was added at 12:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, Northern Irish is near enough! Glad you like it. Are you still in Ireland yourself? I've wrote up most of the years prior to the 17th century, starting off mainly with the fifth century but also legendary events in years assigned to them in Gaelic sources. Am also trying to fill in as best I can other years, decades and centuries, and then writing articles concerning the various events, individuals and current affairs of the time. Very long way to go yet, but I do have great help from a number of very scholarly colleges. Feel free to join in! Fergananim —Preceding comment was added at 12:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply, this and most of these. I should really do some more of the geography articles, but I love football too much, kind regards. King of the North East (T/C) 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many different arguments for and against what you propose, it gets very confusing. Personally I see it like this:

Positivies of blocking IPs

• Decreased vandalism
• Increased accountability of edits
• Ease of communication
• Ease of dealing with vandalism when it does occur
• Less of a "anyone can edit wikipedia so it must be unreliable" problem

Negatives of blocking IPs

• A number of IPs do contribute helpfully
• Many of these helpful users enjoy being anonymous and avoiding the hassle of running an account
• It goes in the face of "the open encyclopedia that anyone can edit" a little bit, one can't just hop on one day and alter a spelling mistake, they would be dissuaded from doing so because they woluld have to create an account just to add one letter or something.

I personally understand both sides, and (annoyingly for you :) ) I sit on the fence. I am, however, in favour of indefinite school blocks on school IP addresses after significant levels of ongoing vandalism have taken place. In the current climate, the school just starts trashing wikipedia as soon as it comes off block. I myself have instigated a number of these indef blocks and many more one year ones. It's a good system.

You can always propose your ideas at the policy pages, where they are I can't remember but I'm sure you know/can find out easily. SGGH ^speak! 07:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally mistaken. The collaboration is ending since no one's interested in novels or unofficial films. Whenever I have worked, it has succeeded. Vikrant Phadkay 15:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• And I have nothing to do with the image that your showing. Vikrant Phadkay 15:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to lecture me. It's not as if I'm new at this. The article is just a few minutes old, for pete's sake. Clarityfiend 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Giannis Markopoulos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. SingCal 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably sure that I'm using CSD exactly how it is supposed to be used. I nominate articles for speedy deletion that don't make an attempt to assert any of the criteria at WP:Music. I'm not going around speedying music stubs left and right. The article in question, as it stood |when I nominated it mentioned his TV series and nothing else, and that particular accomplishment does not fit into any of the notability criteria for composers/lyricists. You've made some changes to the article and now, while I'm still not totally convinced of his notability I'll pursue the channels you mentioned if I decide that it's worth a fight. Those are the methods I've used for the entirety of my tenure at Wikipedia, and so far you are the only editor that has complained to me. Review my edit history, and if you still disagree with the way I'm doing things that's fine, but I'll ask you to treat me with the same respect you would an editor that wasn't editing an article you created. SingCal 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over my edits from this afternoon and I see that I may have gone a little too far with my Twinkle use. I'm sorry if you disagreed with my decision, because it was debatable; however, I still don't appreciate the way in which you chose to brought it to my attention. SingCal 05:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Blof!

I guess we have to expand a bit Zinta's personal life section. The first para deals with her relationship with model Marc Robinson. I've found a little bit of info regarding this relationship.

Prior to this, she was dating hottie model, Marc Robinson. During this break-up, Preity was offended with the way the media projected it. In an interview she’d said, "The media wrote about my relationship the way they perceived it, jumping to their conclusions. After our break-up they made me out to be the sweet one and Marc the bad guy. Actually, it doesn't matter as long as I'm the sweet one. I really don't want to explain anything to anyone now."

Tell me please, should we add it in? I'm afraid whether it's a kind of a gossip and I don't want the article to sound as a sleazy magazine. So what do you think, does it suit an encyclopedical content?

Best regards pal, Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's great like this, that's exactly why I asked you, I wasn't sure, so thanks Blof, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friend, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article already on her. She will star alongside Zinta in the forthcoming film Har Pal... :)

Hey that's annoying I thought the A review will not be so long and nobody has given his view yet. Grrrrrrr... Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I saw that yesterday. That's great. What particularly notable about your work is the dedication to every thing when you start off. Terrific! Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[24] see how it looked back in time. How do you imagine Wikipedia 10 years from now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blof! Someone uploaded one of Rekha's songs in the brilliant film Khoon Bhari Maang, I'm so excited!!! I created the page on Wiki. Read the synopsis that's a great film. Here is a clip with her initial look in the film when she was ugly Before, and this second one she turns a beautiful model and comes to avenge After. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blof someone replied to our A review and he says that short paragraphs of one sentence should not exist in the article... ??? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no much problem with prominent thanks god. That's OK, manu articles use it. I'll expand her two narrow escapes from death in the PL. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Blof merging the paragraphs is a bad idea I think because it doesn't deal with the same thing. Should we expand this para? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You my dear friend, Blofeld. Thank You very much! I plan to nominate it next week after some minor touches. I am currently busy with university right now as I've a couple of midterm exams coming up that I've to study for. After that I should be able to nominate it. I will let you know when I plan to do so. BTW if you're not busy, do you mind going through the article and letting me know how I can improve the article? Shahid has done so too. He's a very good friend and has helped me a lot with Kapoor's article. He told me to take out a couple of stuffs and helped me rewrite some parts. If you're busy with other articles then no problem. I am in no rush. Take your time. Once again thanks for your help and concern. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Blofeld, sorry to bother you. I see you're pretty busy right now but I wanted to ask you something regarding Kapoor's article. I was wondering if I added some criticisms (Turning Point, 2004 - present) for a movie, should I remove the positive ones too or should I say that she receieved mixed reviews from one extreme to another. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does help! Thanks for helping! For this sentence in the lead, After that, Kapoor starred in several films which were less successful at the box office and she was received some criticism in that she was becoming typecast, you put {fact} beside it. Should a ref. be added to show that her following films failed to do well or that she recieved criticism for becoming a typecast actress. BTW if I make the paragraph neutral, then who removes the neutrality tag thing. You or I can? Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 19:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the cinema of Indonesia, and will try to help out when I can. I'm not award of a FIPRESCI cat. Having one doesn't sound like a bad idea. Take care. — WiseKwai 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been busy with work, and anticipate being busy for the next couple of weeks. Hope to get around to starting some articles on Thai film soon, though. — WiseKwai 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh we can remove it but why? The reviewer had no problems. He just said that saying "in the industry" is not good, we have to precise.

Approximate is not needed as per Jolie, one user said once that the best think is to write her biggest success, becuase updating it with every film release is a hard task.

The main thing now is the honesty sentence in the intro. Can we divide it somehow into two sentences? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's great!!! We can write that she is a columnist a stage performer etc... as it appears on Diane Keaton's intro! What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh but Ray and Kiarostami are directors, that's why I came to Diane Keaton. We have also to be careful with the amount of additions to the intro. An automatic peer review may request to shorten it. I checked it right now, but it is OK still, it doesn't warn yet. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea what this means? (from the PR)

• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]

???? Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have one support Blof... Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her father, Durganand Zinta was an officer in the Indian Army. Durganand Zinta died when Preity was thirteen, in a car accident which also involved her mother, Nilprabha Zinta. Her mother survived, but was severely injured and was consequently bedridden for two years.[8] Zinta has two brothers both of whom she is very close to, Deepankar Zinta and Manish Zinta, a year older and a year younger, respectively. Deepankar is a commissioned officer in the Indian Army, while Manish is settled in Los Angeles.

It is more a kind of family introduction, not her life description. You've added this bit after: "Preity was thirteen..." and I think it's wrong because her quote says that her brothers were crying and how can it be possible that we add this quote even before mentioning her brothers and even before mentioning her mother who was involved in the accident?

I just think in chronological order it comes the best, we say she was naughty, sports person, good student, life was beautiful and then everything suddenly changed.

As I said, introduction, not her life description.

re other editor's help, I'm grateful to him, and I didn't revert even one edit, just one thing he rewrote and it sounded bad, nobody is god here. People can make mistakes.

In fact, I came to you for help. Your writing is tremendous. So how can you think that I don't respect you? I just disagreed with this only one edit. I have my own opinion. OK, I guess it's coming out of any proportion, I'm going, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to return today, I was really upset, cause I felt that you feel the I don't give you the respect you deserve. Sorry for arguing. As you said, it's not such a big deal, and thank for your nice words. In fact, I will never stop asking for your help because of such insignificant things, cause you're a great editor. Yet, we can raise it when we take a peer review. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god you replaced your so cute caty with this one? LOL! That's sacary, is that a shop work? Is that real? Thanks for your words! Tell me please, you once said, that Kiraostami is the one of the best filmmakers on earth.. Have you seen many of his films? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't.. I'm aware of Kiraostami's art and have heard several times that he is one of the best. Yet, Satyajit Ray is the best filmmaker I think. He is the first director of Parallel Cinema and realistic films in Indian cinema, which is widely known for its clorful aspects, you must see some of his masterpieces... Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our film directors are internationally recognized, such as Shyam Benegal, Mani Ratnam. They are also responsible for more realistic films, and were nominated for major international honors. On the other hand, Raj Kapoor and Yash Chopra made commercial which are considered today all time classics worldwide, and some of the best. Oh, I can't forget these films (Awara, Shree 420, Sangam, Dhool Ka Phool, Trishul...). Films I have grown up watching. I'm happy they have their own pages on Wikipedia.

You know, Zinta turned her career professionally this year. The Last Lear was screenes in Toronto and London. And an IMDb user commented on this that Rituparno Ghosh's work has been inspired by all time directors like Ray, Kiraostamo.. That's why I mentioned this now. I don'r know why his comment was removed from the database... Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Bachchan was the wet dream of every girl LOL. Like Akshay Kumar was in the 90s, and Hrithik Roshan is today. Amitji is 190 sm. Yeh LOL! And his wife, the great Jaya Bhaduri, is something like 155. LOL They look so funny together. Now I understand why he had an affair with Rekha in the 80s. He was married and had an affair with her at the same time!!!

No Last Lear hasn't yet released in India. Here in Melbourne of course many films are screened, especially films of Yash Raj Films, Dharma Productions and all kinds of thrillers and romances. I went for the second show of Laaga Chunari Mein Daag. If that comes to Yash Raj Films, and expected releases, so I usually tickets for the first screen, but I usually rent films, and thus can watch a film more than once if I really like it. How do you watch films? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh that's cool! What? I find her very beautiful (I said: the great Jaya), yet she is very short! But I think she is a brilliant actress. But she is definitely not as beautiful as the enigmatic Rekha. And Rekha and Amitji make such a nice pair together - their starred in 9 films - all of which were hits. Their last film was Yash Chopra's Silsila and Jayaji also starred in the film. Their last and undoubtedly the most scandalous, cause it was based on the real-life story of this love-triangle! I was blown up with Jaya's performance in Fiza and Karisma Kapoor gave her best in this incredible film. Have you seen the videos of Rekha in Khoon Bhari Maang which I showed you yesterday? She won the best actress award for her performance! Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you've seen the one where she is ugly!! You must see the second one where she is an all time beauty... :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I'm talking about Jaya Bhaduri's height. Rekha is something like 170 sm... So have you seen the second clip where she is beautiful? If now, so I recommend you to do it, she is very beautiful there though a bit chubby Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to come across the above-mentioned article today, which is supposedly a "work-in-progress", but hasn't seen much work yet. Just sort of popping in to remind you of it or something... but as it is unlikely that very many other people will "happen to come across" it anytime soon, I suppose it could remain "in progress" a little longer. --Leviel 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just wondering why you added the "work-in-progress" template to it? I thought that template usually indicates something more "I am at this moment typing stuff into the article" situation? Does it help you remember where you are busy, or is it simply to indicate that you are aware of the article (for instance, so that it's not speedy deleted)? No offence was meant. --Leviel 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that makes sense. People are weird about deleting articles sometimes, aren't they? Anyway, enjoy filing in the details! :P --Leviel 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I butted in on your conversation with Betacommand, here. I thought you ought to see what I wrote. I reckon, as a bot, it's just looking for the text verbatim. Anyway, happy evening to you. The Rambling Man 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the task force would cover all the cinemas as noted in Southeast Asian cinema, which even mentions Myanmar and Laos! I'm quite keen on this, but am limited for time. If Giro doesn't get around to listing the proposed project and working up the beginnings of the page before I do, I hope to have things up and running in a week or so. The World Film Festival of Bangkok starts tomorrow, so I'm gonna be busy with that. — WiseKwai 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project proposed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeast Asian cinema— WiseKwai 12:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much appears to be happening with the proposed task force. I've left notices about it on the talk pages for WikiProject:Southeast Asia and the Singapore arts and entertainment project, and asked at least one person to add his name. But if there's no interest, there's no interest. Nothing I can do about that. It won't change my level of contributions. I just noticed the contributions of Ekyaw, and see it as a pretty exciting development - having another editor working on southeast Asian film, especially Burmese film. — WiseKwai 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at making a Burmese cinema icon later tonight. I've actually seen a Burmese film, Sacrificial Heart by Kyi Soe Tun. It was primitive - like a Thai film from the 1960s - but exuberant. I probably would have written an article about it, but information about Burmese films is hard to find. One day, I hope this changes. — WiseKwai 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's always lots to do. I have a big backlog of Thai films I want to start articles on, and updates to do on active directors. I was talking with a Filipino producer last week and he said at one time there were up to 200 films being produced in the Philippines in the '70s. A lot were what they call "bold" movies - the kind of exploitation cinema that Quentin Tarantino championed when he was at Cinemanila earlier this year. I'd love to come across a reference about that history sometime, or have more sit-down time with a Filipino filmmaker. Many films are simply lost - some prints were cut up an given away as part of a toy prize of some sort. — WiseKwai 16:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Herr Blofeld. I liked your film poster template, so I blatantly ripped it off for my: Image:Ppong.jpg. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... Hope you don't mind. Thanks! Dekkappai 02:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Blofeld. Yes, I presume our mutual friend V.O. introduced himself by "shocking and awing" you with a page full of image notifications also... After starting out on the wrong foot, he turns out to be a great guy after you get to know him though. Happy editing! Dekkappai 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It's part of my "to-do" list, but Quebecois musicians from ~1900-~1940 is what I'm mostly working on, and there's so many redlinks to go around. So I'm going one at a time.

Cheers WilyD 16:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He now has an article. Feel free to expand it! Cheers. Lugnuts 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took more than 6 weeks to assess but it has happened !

Casino Royale is now GA Class !

Tovojolo 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AbuDhabistamps1964.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AbuDhabistamps1966.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AbuDhabistamps1967.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL are you serious? Rekha is one of the sexiest women in India. Well, it's you're right to think so and actually you're not really aware of all these Bollywood films. I don't find Shabanaji so sexy at all, and she was never considered as a sexy woman, yet she is a great actress, and won the most National Film Award for Best Actress than any other actress. So it's cool!

I think you haven't seen the second video I showed you from Khoon Bhari Maang - She is just gorgeous there! (Not with the children one)

Look Rekha in her younger days [25]. She is almost raped here!

And you must see her here [26]. She is 50 but so sexy!!! You must see that! She is so attractive here!

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So see these new ones I gave you... You will be shocked! And her scene with Akshay Kumar in Khiladyon Ka Khiladi - One of the most controversial... Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look this image from Khoon Bhari Maang. LOL, before and after - when her face was terrible and after the "plastic surgery" in the film - [27]... Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I found it man!! Here is the most controversial video of the 90s - Rekha with Akshay!! In the end they take a shower together!!! It was a big scandal, especially because he is younger than her in more than 13 years!!! She was shraply criticized (but nevertheless won awards)! LOL! Don't miss it.. This one will really surprise you... I want to here your comment on this! :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe! You are so popular here god!! You have contacts and relations with every editor here it's amazing. I removed the images because she is a little bit ugly (LOL) there, we hardly see her and it has no really relation to the text but I'm quite calm about that because she will soon be in the news again, and there will be tons of new images but thanks thanks thanks thanks for your help!!! Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes, our last step before taking it to GA I think will be a Peer review. Don't you think? Wow it is so great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh the case of Shetty was because of some extremist. Yet, when it comes to Rekha, everything is allowed. She is very open to these things. If you see Kama Sutra (1997) where Rekha stars (it's an erotic film!!!), though Rekha didn't have nudity or love scenes, she was sharply criticized and many many thought that it is the end of her career. As for Shilpa, she was regarded for many years as the gal with the best body in Bollywood. Look this video - she is so so so hot here [28] it's a video from 1994. Wow... Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Blof, do you know how many supports we need to promote it to A? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry friend I will do Dharmendra's and more tables (Juhi Chawla too) somehow later. I'm so busy in real life. I just have no time to be here even. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which WikiProject is it being reviewed for? is it Biography? I'll do it but where?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I left a message of support on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Preity Zinta

Tovojolo 13:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderball ? You mean there's a Bond film that he hasn't monopolised ? lol

No wonder the collaboration's ending, you can't have one person scurrying around, doing everything himself and excluding and reverting others - I saw the contretemps you had with him on Diamonds Are Forever.

A collaboration is about teamwork which is something he's never understood.

Tovojolo 14:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Deborah Kerr for GA status today. Deborah Kerr is actually a James Bond article too as she was the Bond Girl on Casino Royale. She was the oldest ever Bond Girl on any of the Bond films. She was 46 and as beautiful as ever.

Tovojolo 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you created Culbone Church based on the Culbone article. I just wondered why you changed its location from Somerset to Devon?— Rod ^talk 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would I do if you weren't here to help?:) How can someone be so keen to help others like you are? Thanksssssssss!!!! Sorry for being so absent! I'm just super busy!!! A user lend his support but suggested to change the title of commitments to a new title... What do you think about mmmm Other work? Regards regards regards pal Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on Bhumika Chawla. It was terrible!!! Could you please find an image for her? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LuzernCheeseFestival.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast 09:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the license on my flickr page, suppose to be no problem right now for this and other images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mir wiki25 (talk • contribs)

I have closed the ifd and fixed the images. Rettetast 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Danceswithwolves2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, while I like your infobox redesign, I changed the "Green" color for it back to the blue/gray that Project members had agreed on. We use the Green for Turf races to differentiate from dirt (brown).

You asked: "I was wondering if you think it is right to list all of the jockey wins in the infobox?" - In my view it is a matter of judgment. For some jockeys like Bill Shoemaker the list would be far too long so I try to limit it to Classic and Grade/Group 1 races. Others, like Russell Baze, have very few major wins but obviously his record is equally as important so his list will include Grade II/III wins but also multiple wins in the same race. In each case, use your judgment.

We need more editors from all parts of the globe. While my interest is basically the U.S. and Canada, I try to do a few reasonably good articles on places (or a few horses) where we need more editors such as Australia, South Africa, Dubai, and Hong Kong, in the hopes that knowledgeable newcomers will pick them up on Google etc. searches and come here to create. E.g.: Victoria Derby, Durban July Handicap, Dubai World Cup, Hong Kong Derby. There are excellent editors here from Europe who have made major contributions, designing great articles such as (2007 Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, 2007 Epsom Derby). They have also created many, many race tables and bios for numerous jockeys and trainers. In their non-boxed bios, they list major wins with horse names. Before inserting an infobox, I suggest you discuss it with User:Zafonic to come up with a reasonable standard for race inclusion.

If you wish to help out, that would be greatly welcomed. I'm no expert, just a fan, but if I can be of assistance, please don't hesitate to ask. Handicapper 15:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kurbaan.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been reworking WP Films' infrastructure, I have been thinking about how to integrate more closely into the Actors and Filmmakers project, since WP Films' expanded scope theoretically should cover people. There really wouldn't be too much changes needed all around, but the main thing I wanted to run through you was to ask why it is a WikiProject, especially since it's already a declared workgroup of WP Bio. All I really want to do is formally share the group with WP Bio, so it would be a workgroup to them and a task force-equivalent to us. And it seems that between the two larger projects, it would make more sense to devolve the higher-level admin work to them anyway, thus leaving the group freer to actually work on the articles directly. So I guess I wanted to ask your thoughts. Girolamo Savonarola 19:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC) (PS - still haven't got around to Categorization yet - it's a big project in all, and I'd rather roll out a comprehensive program with complete consistency. My suggested compromise for the moment is to let all the articles be in both categories; when we have the momentum of consensus for a larger categorization structuring, it should be very easy to do big work.)[reply]

The October 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For image of Kyi Kyi Htay you can click http://www.people.com.mm/article.cfm?id=6778&parent=6775&sec=10. and YOu can see page no 127 upper photo.---- Ekyaw (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]