User talk:Plumcouch/Archive 4

Wow! Thank you so much, Plumcouch. See, this was the problem: I couldn't exactly understand the copyright policy and which information to provide, so I tried something random. Your message was an extremely big help, and I will try to find a suitable picture withing a few days. Once again, thank you! By the way, can you teach me how to put pictures on articles properly, so in the future I won't need to come begging for help? If I am getting a bit annoying, please tell me so I don't bug you; I know this was probably troublesome for you, so thank you, thank you, thank you!

You have been invited to participate in the:

GUESS MY NAME CHALLENGE

(Try to guess my name and put it in my Talk Page under the section Guess My Name) Guess my first name.Contest ends June 16, 2006. --Cute 1 4 u 22:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plumcouch,

Although you are not an administrator, you seem to be a self-styled Wikipedia policeman. I don't understand why you have been going around giving people strict instructions on what to write and what not to write. For the Aamir Khan and Vidya Balan pages, you insist on not having links to fansites. I don't understand why. If you want the power of an administrator, become an administrator. Don't take the law into your own hands.

Administrators are not the law. Admins are normal users with more abilities. See here: [[1]]

Fan sites are a big problem. First of all, most of them violate copyright laws by displaying pictures which don't have proper copyright information and strictly, those pages are not allowed to display them. If anther page (like Wikipedia) links them, Wiki can get into trouble and with it the entire project. Also, if you add one fansite, you have to add them all. Wiki is no linkfarm and not there to improve people's traffic. Add content instead of links.

Regarding the Meera Jasmine page, you are exceptionally rigid about what belongs in the page and what does not. You want a citation for everything, and you claim that a lot of the information is not relevant on the page. Do you want us to say "Meera Jasmine is an Indian actress", immediately put up a citation, scan a copy of her birth certificate and put it up there just to prove that she exists?

I don't doubt she's an actress. Google has various entries on her to prove that. If someone claims she's a devotee of Ganesha, movie xyz has been a mega-super successful film, it would be nice to add citations so you can identify such claims as not merely fangush or rumour which is very common on actor/actress pages. Lots of actor/actress sites don't have references and I admit that's still a big problem.

In the Filmography, I don't understand why you say the director and the co-star belongs in the movie's entry and not in Meera Jasmine's entry. I'm sure you understand that the career of every actor or actress is shaped by the number of big names he/she works with, and it is a reflection of the actor's career. So the info certainly belongs to the Meera Jasmine entry.

"Big names" is a very controversial topic. What's big name? Is a big name still big compared to international directors/actors like Tom Cruise or Steven Spielberg? Furthermore there have been problems with citing co-stars and directors to show that actor xyz is "greater" than actor abc. If you follow the edit history of actors Ajith and Joseph Vijay, you'll find a good example. In order to stop people and fans from these kind of edit wars, I think it's better to keep filmographies as simple as possible - else, things can easily be mistaken as fangush or hero glorification. Also, most actor/actress pages in the Indian Cinema Project have filmographies with just the roles and the movie - it was universally agreed upon and no one of the participants wanted to change that. If you insist upon changing the way articles at the Project should be written, you can make a formal proposal here: [2].

And why do you insist on creating links to pages that do not exist, such as the movie pages which do not exist? If you insist on creating a link, you make sure the link points to something, and if a page does not exist, create the page first before pointing to it.

If you have a red link (one without an article behind it), people easily identify it as such and are generally more easily motivated to click on that link and create the article if they have seen the movies. Those red links worked very well with Preity Zinta, Shahrukh Khan or Rani Mukerji's whose red links are (almost) gone.

You claim that some of the things people write are POV. But when you edited "Meera Jasmine", you wrote the statement, "Meera Jasmine is a popular Indian actress". What if I were to say that the word 'popular' reflects a 'POV' and therefore, you were wrong to write it? I can even say that the use of the word 'popular' makes it fangush. Everything can be perceived as a POV or a fangush if u insist.

Right. "Popular" *is* POV, no doubt about it. But it's a compromise compared to "mega star", "the fourth Khan" or all the other things I have read as an description in that first introduction. We can cut the "popular" if you want to, but I think it's the most neutral description among all the "non-neutral" descriptions out there.

I think you want to prove to some invisible soul that you are accomplishing something exceptional. It gives you a sense of power and boosts your ego. You often mention the bad things people say about you, such as "racist" or "dictator". You can add "egomaniac", "megalomaniac" and "power freak".

I will add them to my page. ;) Best regards, --Plumcouch 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Plumcouch. I think you made a mistake. I added the links to the movies - they weren't there earlier. RegardsGamesmaster G-9 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No issues, buddy. Keep fighting the good fight, and get a good night's rest in between ;) Gamesmaster G-9 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again (and this is probably getting very tedious), thank you for your tips and links. For now, though, I just thought I'd ask your opinion on these three pictures: whether they are suitable, whether they are clear enough, etc. Also, on the third one, I am going to edit out the words, but I now know that I should still put the copyright holder as the production house.

Actually, I think you are very right about people putting useless pictures on the page; unfortunately, I don't think Shahid Kapoor has been acting long enough to get very different pictures, so I'm sorry that these aren't an exception. They are just (in my mind) good pictures of him in his better movies so far.

These are the pictures: [3] [4][5] It's up to you which one of them is good (if any), and I should be able to find the copyright status of it. Thanks!

Oh, by the way: on the first one, click the link, then click on the first photo on the page. Dragonfury 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how you have plenty of experience with Bollywood pics, I'd like to ask a favour - I've been unable to find suitable photos for some of the articles I created (Mandakini, Rakhi Sawant, Mamta Kulkarni, Carol Gracias, Pritam). If you could tell me the process you follow, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance.Gamesmaster G-9 12:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Plumcouch, I saw some of things he/she has written on your talk page. I guess we can keep a watch on him/her and if he/she carries on then we should try talking to him/her. Thanks for the heads up. Pa7 17:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you again. I just saw that a new user has created a new article on Hindi films. The list is very incomplete and needs to be sorted out aplhabetically. If possible, can you please start adding any Hindi films you can think of, we can sort out the order later. Im trying to get as many people to help out. Thank you. Pa7 18:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Hi again! I think we do not need the article because half of the Hindi films don't even have articles on them. We have the category Hindi-language films and that has all the films that have articles on them. Even if we do expand this list, the majority will be filled with reds! I talked to the user who created it but I need some opinions. Thanx. Pa7 19:13, 5 August 2006

You don't know how big a help you have been to me--thanks so much for explaining and helping. I'll get around to putting the pic as soon as I have the time, but hopefully I won't neeed to ask for help anymore. One more favor, though: could you please upload the first picture for me (from Fida)? I edited it at home to crop the borders, but .bmp isn't an accepted format, and this computer doesn't have Photoshop or anything. Also, how are you supposed to change the first picture in an article (meaning, the first one you see when you open the window, the main one, etc.)to the picture of your choice? TAAA (thanks again and again) Dragonfury 15:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you understood everything correctly. Sorry if my English is a little strange, too; English isn't my first language (improving, though, I hope). I'll email it to you, but I won't post my email on here. Please tell me your email so I can send the picture.

I had cropped the border and taken out any other things that looked bad in the Fida picture (which is the one of my choice), but the Paint program (since I don't have photoshop or anything, that's what I'm using)is giving me a lot of problems. Whenever I try to save it to a folder or anything, it also copies all of the extra white space, which makes it a bigger size. This is a problem because, on that website, images can't be larger than 517 kb, and mine is more than that because of that extra space. I tried for about an hour to get rid of it, but when I do, it makes it a scrap. I'm no computer genius at all, and I have no idea what to do now. Thanks for the website anyway, but I would really appreciate it if you could help me on this (again). I don't mind if it takes time, just want to get it done. Dragonfury 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i do believe Shez 15 is IP 70.71.234.81. I guess he does not want to log in most of the time. Is there something that can be done. I don't know wiki policies very well but it is much better to identify someone by there user name and not there IP address.. Pa7 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plumcouch, someone has created a page on a non-existing film entitled Nish the boss. I would really appreciate it if you looked in to the matter. Thanks! Hariharan91 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the information given on the page seems false. Besides that, the person who created the page was someone called Nishy, the so called lead actor in the film. Hariharan91 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Babul- cast, Om Puri's name is mentioned last, after Rani, Salman & John. Being a senior actor, he deserves a little more respect than that! His name should ideally be mentioned right after Hema Malini, if one is going according to seniority.

Hi! Okay, will keep that in mind! :)

Okay fine. You should have told me that, before deleting the links. Instead you said something like "dont act smart" about which I felt someone was keen on removing MY links only.

Anyway thanks for the clarification.

As someone said above..you feel ego boost by citing the names you have been called on your profile record(achievements of sorts). Even i got some ego which i display when i tag all my posts as "Anon alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza article"( peeved for calling a genuine contributor(..lots of info i submitted to article..u won't find by any google search)a Vandal and assert your Admn powers. When the WP invites anyone and everyone to edit (based on some policy) it should amend its policy to channel all info through proper channels and most of all respect the contributor for doing the voluntary stuff. The current method of few Admns deciding on arbitrarily what goes in and what goes out and putting the rejected material under some convenient and vague tag..(like a POV which is the perception of individual admns)should be given up for the betterment of WP. or follow the age old way of editing by experts like what other EP's have been following all along. Hope this post is not a trivia to be dumped since this is your pvt talk page.

..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

Thanks for uploading Image:PriyankaChopra.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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:Fair use, 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Plumcouch. I just wanted to let you know that I have disputed the fair use claim, that you wrote for Image:Trisha Krishnan.jpg. You can read my reasoning on the image's description page. I notice that quite a number of your other uploads are basically portraits of contemporary actors. Before uploading any more images like those, please carefully consider fair use criterion #1. Wikipedia's goal is to create a free content encyclopedia, useable by anyone, anywhere, forever. Such photos, even if they are used even temporarily, hurt our chances of acquiring free images consistent with the goal. Thanks. ×Meegs 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "The picture on Trisha Krishnan's article is now from the movie Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana. I provided a critical comment on the movie, so we can keep the picture. The pic is *not* from the movie Aaru anymore, as mentioned in Meeg's warning box."

If it's from a movie, we can only use it in the context of providing critical commentary on that particular movie. We cannot use it just to depict the person. Sorry.  :( I appreciate you working so hard to get images into copyright compliance, it's just a little tricky. --Yamla 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comments on my discussion page (too hot and too sleepy to copy-and-paste back here). Thanks. --Yamla 22:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong in adding a column on co-stars in the Filmography. Please note that this is for a sake of general discussion and I am not arguing. Let us have a discussion and consensus. Doctor Bruno 00:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The explanation is convincing. Please note that I was not in favour of or against one format. I just want to know basis of the current trend. And your explanation that it is not the article about the movie, but only about the actor is a valid argument. May be if there was a significant person (in guest role, perhaps) like a sports personality, producer or singer who acted in a key role (for example Sivaji Ganesan in Thevar Magan) that can be noted (as an exception and not as a general role). Hope this is OKDoctor Bruno 13:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular fact to add as of now. It was just an opinion. Even if I feel like adding something (in future in any page), I will first discuss in the talk pages and then only add Doctor Bruno 14:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had a look at the page, the user may be new and does not know the way things go. It seems you have reasoned with him but I will also talk to him if her carries on. He keeps mentioning the fact that Khan is always called "Prem", no point in putting in. Shahrukh is always called Rahul or Raj! BTW did you watch Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna? What did you think of it? Pa7 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much crying in the film! Everyone was crying especially SRK and Mukerji!. I liked Abhishek and Preity, they were very realistic in there roles. Not a bad film! Pa7 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right. The Katrina Kaif article was vandalized to the point of stubbiness. Nice catch. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what you and I think. The point is that the film maker's decision how to credit the actors is not biased and very much important than what we think. I wouldn't mind Rani's name not to be mentionned before a supporting actress even though she might be the main actress. Films articles on wikipedia should give respect to the film itself. Whatever the circumstance, the best way to solve this is to leave it as the film intends it to be written. By the way, the poster and the movie plus the official website credits Mukerji before Zinta. Anyway, I don't get the point. Why won't you put the new poster there. It's not copyrighted plus it shows the main characters. Like on Devdas page, Madhuri, Khan and Rai are all on the poster, so why be unjust here? Again, I should point out that Dixit is credited before Rai! Why? When you do know that she is the supporting cast. Why? Are you being unfair to Mukerji because you like Zinta more? Why is there an edit war over such a small issue. I am not favoring anyone. If I may say, I saw the movie Kya Kehna again today, and at the end, the credits came as Saif Ali Khan then Chandrachur and then Zinta. And here on wikipedia, Zinta is credited before them! Why? You like her more? I think you guys are doing favoritism when you should act professional. I'm not a professional. So I may make follies but in this case, I rest my case as it is. shez 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Plumcouch,

Though you have sought permission from salmankhan.net, the picture is against Wikipedia guidelines of fair use.

The picture in question is to be used in wikepedia.org and not in salmankhan.net, hence the authorization for the use of that picture is nullified.

I hope you realise this, and use your editing powers for fair-use only.

A high resolution photograph originating from a neutral source will be highly appreciated.

regards,

Slytime

Het Plumcouch, I have talked to User:BLACKDRAGON but to be honest I think he will carry on with his editing on Kapoor's page. Im waiting for a reply and hopefully he/she will reason with us. There were loads of pictures that were copyvio so I added a picture from the film Mujhse Dosti Karoge! but looks like that user was not happy. Also you mentioned something about Shez being a suspected sock puppet, well he made some recent edits on my talk page and signed his message as Shez15. I had a look at the edit history and saw that it was IP:70.71.234... I don't know the rest. Is this an offence on wikipedia and can something be done. Im sure Shez sent you the message that were being biased towards Mukerji and favouring Zinta instead! Pa7 12:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you made it very clear about what you thought!! LOL!! Lets hope he listens. Ummm, how do you archive?? I have no idea how to do that? Help..? Pa7 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put the cast order alphabetically then go ahead, it would go Khan first then Mukerji and then Zinta but that's stupid. We should go by the order as the film depicts it. At the end of the day, the film maker's verdict on how to put his star cast is the most influential and promising source. If that is the thing, then I must put Zinta after Mukerji in Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega and Veer-Zaara. You can see the french wikipedia where Mukerji's name is before Zinta for both movies. And I must put Zinta after Saif and Chandrachur in Kya Kehna as it is the case in the film. You must respect the director for his opinion. We don't matter! If you have any other retorts, do negotiate before editing. Thanks!

Hey Plumcouch, Im getting tired of this. I swapped the credits for Mangal Pandey, Mujhse Dosti Karoge! and KANK. I have a feeling Shez might revert them, but i'll keep on swapping them until he gets the point. Also out of anger I swapped the credits for Kya Kehna. I have not watched that film in a long time, so I want to see myself how the credit order is. Also I have seen the contributions to K3G. Why has he put a image of Rani with the Bachchan and Khan especially when she only had a cameo appearance. I mean is that right?? Pa7 12:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better idea. Just credit people according to films. I am happy about Veer-Zaara, KANK, HDJPK, Devdas and the rest. The point of me giving credibility to the official website was to back up my idea on why rani should be before preity. I only needed to show you that the film was the most important thing but you wouldn't get it. That's why I had to use the poster and the official website as other indicators. But now, that the film is how we credit, I'm happy. We'll just wait how Baabul and Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is credited. In Kya Kehna, I saw the film. It's Saif, Chandrachur and then Preity as the cast order in the end. But I don't mind if you break the rule. Who's going to go on the Kya Kehna article? I think Preity is last because initially it was her first film. Anyway, whatever! Thanks for getting my point. Now, I'm ready to do whatever you think is unfair. I'll revert it myself! I hope we're fine now. -- shez_15