Bollyjeff

Bollyjeff (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, must have been a mistake on my part. Definitely would not have intended to remove that part. I trust you made the appropriate corrections. And yeah it's a great film, along with My Sassy Girl and some others. It's weird I don't even like Romantic Comedies usually, but I love the Korean ones. Leonffs (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can't say I have. I liked Slumdog Millionaire but I don't think that's considered Bollywood. Any recommendations? Leonffs (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sources are very important according to WP:CITE and particularly WP:BLP. If I had more time, I would add sources myself. If you can source the article, then it's great. Everything that is likely to be challenged must be sourced. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. :)

I definitely support goodwill, but believe it or not, there are people who are so bored that they start adding unsourced stuff which sounds rather logical, so that others would not instantly revert them. That's called sneaky vandalism. I've long ago stopped trying to take such things for granted. Anything must be sourced. Best, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I haven't seen Three Times, nor I have written that sentence. It was edited by some other user; I just rephrased that sentence. If you are sure it's not a remake, then you can remove that sentence.--Managerarc^(talk) 14:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you put some notices to 79.158.152.90

He/she is messing up some pages that I follow with false info too. What do you do about someone like this? Bollyjeff (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia :)

You warn them, you can find warning templates at WP:VANDALISM. I think that they're using the account for spam/advertising purposes only so I've given them a final warning. Any more edits and WP:AIV will be made aware. Any questions please don't hesitate to ask me --5 albert square (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you know why Wikipedia doesn't require people to have an account and talk page before doing edits? Some of these folks do not have one, so there is no way to warn them. Bollyjeff (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Only just noticed this :)

People don't have to have an account to edit Wikipedia because Wikipedia believes that the encyclopedia should be available to everyone to edit. Sometimes you'll find that it is a registered editor making an edit but because they're only going to be on for a few minutes they generally don't bother signing in and they just edit under the IP. I know I'm guilty of that sometimes!

Anyway, if an IP doesn't have a talk page then the work talk should appear in red, just like in this example. In that case just click on the red link, leave your message (preferably with an edit summary), click to save your message. The IP will now be aware that they have a message and the talk link will no longer show in red. I hope this explains things :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately the edits became part of a disruption campaign by a blocked user attempting the make a point. Sorry that you have inadvertantly become involved in that.

You are indeed correct in unbolding.

My apologies! Active Banana (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've come here from another editors's talk page. Just a heads-up that if you find your good edits are being reverted please raise the issue on the talk page of the article. You may also wish to post at the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject to bring the matter to the attention of other editors. Please remember the three revert rule, it would be a pity to get blocked when it was avoidable. Mjroots (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re your message: Active Banana explained the situation already, but I wanted to follow-up myself. Your changes were caught up while dealing with another editor that is stalking another editor. The revert that I did was not targeted against you, but against the first editor. I did not check to see what your edits were about. Active Banana has restored your changes to the article. Sorry about that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did not want to revert you. I actually thought I was reverting the article to a version made by you. There is a vandal who keeps vandalising articles - I was sure I was reverting him. So again, I'm sorry. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeh, but we also have to understand that most of the Indian-related articles, especially those related to film are not as followed as articles related to foreign actors/films. If someone adds seemingly valid info which is unsourced and lacking in grammar, we cannot rely on the hope that someone will kindly come, correct their mistakes and source the info. It happened to me in my wikihistory that I tried to source someone's edits which appeared perfectly suitable and eventually these edits ended up being just sneaky vandalism. Therefore, if I find any new addition, I'll try to source and correct it if I have the time for it, but if I don't, I will have to revert it and keep our articles clean. Unfortunately, I'm not as active as I used to be several years ago. Take care, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re your message: I left a warning about their edits. The big message on the top of that IP's talk page and the multitude of messages means that the IP is what they call a shared IP. Multiple people are using the same IP address. Sometimes it is the same person, sometimes they are not. Sometimes the edits are good, sometimes they are not. In this case, most of the edits are bad, so I'm going to guess that this is IP address assigned to a public computer or access point of some sort. All of the warnings are for different times somebody has used the IP address, but none of them have used it for long enough to warrant a block. The edits from the IP are very infrequent, so these editors slip by with a single warning. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re your message: Sometimes. =) I think the problem is that the person behind the IP stopped after the final warning and then there was a gap of a few days between the final warning and the next edit. The assumption with shared IPs is that if there is a gap of several days, that is it likely a different person. I do agree that this IP has been a long term problem and probably should be blocked. If they vandalize again, I'd be happy to block them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting my recent action with a clear explanation in the edit summary. The original unexplained change makes sense now. Mirokado (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Jeff, I like your work, thanks for the help on Bollywood. I miss the days when I had full time to edit articles, and those days when I used to expand the Bollywood article on a daily basis and create film articles. I'm glad to know that people like you are becoming a great part of this project. Cheers, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't want to turn it into a debate. Both versions are accepted in different places of the world. My English, as you may notice, is British. Here and here you can see different approaches all of which are accepted. Generally, in specific sentences which discuss a particular couple consisting of two people, "are" makes more sense in that context. The pronoun in fact will always be "their", not "its". I turned to VP here and people differ in their opinions. Anyway, I am not going to make a big deal out of that, so if you want to revert me, feel free to do so. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have requested temporary protection. Let's see!-- - M4nag3r(-)rC^[Reply] 08:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Most news organizations, standard (not self published) books, items that have been peer reviewed or passed edtorial board review are generally valid sources. Entertainment websites, not so much. Hits from news.google.com (except for the blogs) and books.google.com (except for Inc Icon) are generally good sources. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

		The Indian Cinema Barnstar
		For your continuous and impressive work on articles related to Hindi cinema. Good job, Shahid • Talk2me 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Again, good job! I'll take a look and make some copyedits. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think the appropriate place is on the article's talk page. If you can find instructions detailing otherwise, I will removed the CSD tag, :) PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm wrong. Removing the CSD tag now. PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me 22:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is of course practically the same since Hindi cinema is Bollywood and Bollywood is Hindi cinema. I also find the name a bit demeaning, and I prefer referring to it as Hindi cinema, and not Bollywood, which makes it sound really a miserable copy of Hollywood. However, the name has been used to the hilt to describe the Hindi film industry and that's how it's mostly cited in the western world. I think either way is good. But this guy is also changing quotes, templates and links, which make them inaccessible, so I had to revert him. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. You have a new message at Bento00's talk page.

Excellent work on the GA! Would love to see Sholay promoted to GA. Good to see at last somebody is doing some good work on Bollywood films...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fantastic work, you really keep surprising. I hope Sholay will get there but at that point I got really busy and I actually thought I'd look for some worthy source. Let's see if I can find something which will help us make a comprehensive article about the film. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well only book sources - I remember reading some book which had many details about the film, including its production, its release, and the reception in the press. Can't find it yet. Which other articles are you considering for improvement? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bollyjeff! I could really do with some help on that article. Plus maybe you could look into this? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 16:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I really don't know anything about the woman either. All I did was a grammar/importance copyedit. I'd love a third persons intervention in the talk page for now. Then perhaps, when you aren't very busy, a copyedit on the actual article? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work on the article! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 18:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, first of all congrats for your works on Bollywood films. Regarding Rangeela, Singer Anupama's name was mistyped as Anupama Deshpande by the Indiafm and this was followed by other sites. Some of them even credits "Chandralekha", magnum opus song of Anupama to Anupama Deshpande. Anupama Deshpande is a Bollywood singer and she doesnt sing Western. She has not sung a single song for Rahman. Many of singer Anupama's songs are wrongly credited to her. In Rangeela also, the songs are by Anupama. If you have a casette or CD, you can see the singer credited is simply "Anupama", but Anupama Deshpande is usually credited by her full name itself. I had conducted a thorough research regarding this when I created the page Annupamaa, which has nearly all songs of Anupama listed.Arfazph (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Iam trying to find a link, but i don't know whether I could find one.Arfazph (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You asked "How is this based on actual events???". I don't know, I added the category because of the claim in the first paragraph of the article. But since you asked, I did some quick research -- the story started as a series of blog posts by Kim Ho-Sik. They were presented as true diary entries, chronicling his relationship with a "sassy girl". The original Korean blog posts can be found here: http://blue.utb.edu/tyi/Korean/yubgi/yubgi01.htm (or so I am told -- I can't read Korean). An English translation is here: http://my-sassy-jihyun.blogspot.com/ (I'm not sure if it is complete -- it doesn't have as many parts as the Korean version). My web searching also implies a happy ending was added when the blog posts were changed into a novel, and then a film... Shadzane (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing! Rollback rights have to be requested. A much easier alternative is to go to My Preferences->Gadgets, and enable Twinkle which gives you as much, or more power than rollbacking does! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

If that article is attacked one more time, I'm going to request protection for it - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am. There is a certain Indian one-upmanship mentality, which I have never really understood. Probably fueled by fanatic politics, or inferiority complexes. One thing for sure though, these edits are never going to stop. People are always trying to prove a point, and Wikipedia seems a wonderful place to do that. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Haha! But that's the beauty of it :) Wikipedia takes a step back now and then, but two steps forward. That's why it's still so awesome, and Knol is dead! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 15:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have requested protection here - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I checked it, and I myself have trouble finding the adjusted records of Sholay. You need not add a converted figure. We just have to add its original gross (not nett gross), and then explain how much it means nowadays. I'll have to check it first myself and then I'll give you an answer. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry - I did not notice your previous message and only now did I see your username on my watchlist. I'll see what I can do. Apart from that, I think the article, though good (and well done for the hard work!) is not there yet. I think we need to expand the section of critical response. I'll look for some other reviews too. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, Jeff, it's hard for me to find any such data on any source. I think the best way to go as of now is to pick either BOI or IBOs and use it consistently. If BOI does not have it at this point, then IBOS's figures should be fine. I'll try to concentrate on critical reviews and I'll add them to the article in just a few days. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bollyjeff! My name is Dwaipayan, one of the fellow wikipedians. I just come across somewhere that you are trying to get the Sholay article to GA status. I just wanted you to wish best of luck. I worked on the article to some extent several years ago, but did not have time thereafter.

Anupama Chopra's book is really a great source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Bollyjeff, please see the most recent administrative decision on this issue here. You can also refer to previous consensuses which established the guideline for both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Nastaleeq) scripts in Bollywood articles (poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3). I have explained my reasons for retaining the use of both scripts here. The administrator ruling the standstill in which no Urdu scripts can be added or removed from Bollywood related film articles even informed User:Mdmday about the decision and despite the warning, User:Mdmday attempted to alter scripts in Bollywood related film articles, as evidenced in Kal Ho Naa Ho. I am guessing you are not from the Indian subcontinent. You can usually tell from an individuals name whether or not they are Kashmiri, Punjabi, etc. Nevertheless, I added the Kashmiri script to articles which already stated that the individual was Kashmiri (for example, see their biography or the categories already existing in the page). Also, in several of the articles, I have provided indeed provided thorough sources of their ethnicity (e.g. Mushtaq Kak, Anupam Kher, Santha Rama Rau, Ravinder Kumar) to which your accusation is baseless. If you are in doubt, you can read the article on the caste in which you can further educate yourself on Kashmiri clan names (e.g. Mattoo, Kak, Kichlu). I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bollyjeff,

Sorry, but you keep on reverting the Auto-Tune article and removing my changes. I know how it might appear to you as vandalism or reckless editing, but I invite you to read my article and compare it with the old one and realize that mine serves as a more complete and comprehensive extension of the original. If you like, you can even verify my sources. Don't worry: I've done my research and this article is the real deal.

Mattheckatight (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you mean the imdb ref., it is inadequate. If you are referring to another reference, you need to be more clear. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You were already told by Marnette that the information was not appropriate, but you readded it anyway. The imdb ref, as I said when I removed it, is inadequate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I really don't know how we're going to replace all those Indiaglitz links. In most cases, there are no alternatives at all.

Judging by Pravinraj's recent activities, he is clearly aware of what's going on with the article, but is choosing to avoid it. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree with your comment on the GA2 page. Perhaps Indian actor BLP's are best left as large incoherent walls of texts with single contributors. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good luck with that! For what it's worth, it was nice working with you on the article. Cheers - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 16:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bollyjeff: Thanks. Hello - I agree that it is best to not give an opinion of the ending rather than label it sweet or bittersweet. Did the person who labeled it bittersweet know that the man lived and that the end was light-hearted, almost funny. He never died and he wanted to know if she had time to hear a long story. Thanks for giving it a non-opinion status for those who haven't viewed it yet. Imcyrano (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Imcyrano (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi! In accordance with what is the norm elsewhere, should we not have the names in native script for actors too. For example, for politicians, it is a fairly common thing. See Manmohan Singh. Thanks. Lovy Singhal (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jeff. It's not very difficult to compare edits and understand the deviousness of the human nature. The first guy asked you for help to disguise his identity and remove any suspicions from himself, but there's a technical feature called check user which some of the admins are authorised to use, and he was found to be a sock. This one is another guy I suspect, and it is merely due to the frequent glorification of Rajesh Khanna and articles related to him. A check will be made soon.

I congratulate you for the wonderful work you've been doing. I wish I had enough time to edit. I do try to contribute as much as I can. I would want to expand such biographies as Konkona Sen Sharma, Vidya Balan, who's been doing quite well off late, but it takes a lot of research time. In the meanwhile I'm formatting the remaining Filmfare Award pages, filling in the missing nominations and making it look more organised - so far I've done Best Actor, Actress, Music Director, Lyricist, Playback Singer (Male and Female), and now I'm up to Best Story. These categories will help me create different missing articles. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did not look into the source, but I agree with you because such mistakes often happen. I say remove it if you like, I'll support the removal. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

See the history page of Filmfare Awards... Woahh... Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Based on your post on my talkpage, can you file a WP:SPI? Also, take a look at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#HALO as some more were brought to my attention. I'll assist with the adminly tasks after the SPI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reported at WP:AIV.--- Managerarc ^talk 14:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Most of the user's edits are good faith and certainly does not constitute vandalism. Crew is not part of the MOS, so there is nothing wrong if it is removed. Regarding infobox edits, I think the user is using Bollywood Hungama as source and trying to change everything according to the website.

Well you can take up the issue at WP:ANI if you think so. Also I think that 205.242.229.70 and 205.242.229.69 are one and the same person. --- Managerarc ^talk 11:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Bollyjeff. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 23:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TB on my page too, please add to the SPI, I've blocked this one, but there might be some sleepers. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think he's okay because he removes names, changes dates from DM to MD (as opposed to how it should be in India-related articles), and removes links. The crew section may not be totally necessary, but I don't think it hurts either, particularly in our articles most of which do not have proper filming sections and also because the infobox does not have some of the required parameters for other crew members, like costume design, art direction, choreographer and so forth. So his edits are not at all constructive. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

As you know, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharan Kapoor shows they are a hoax. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kapoorsharan shows that Kapoorsharan and several other nicks were blocked for sockpuppetry related to the hoax. It also shows the hoaxer has a variable IP, which means they can edit around the block unless a whole IP range is blocked, which the admins decided not to do. I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kapoorsharan and the IP was blocked for a week for editing around the block. If you see the IP or other users re-adding the hoax, just start another sockpuppet investigation, noting like I did that this is a hoaxer editing around a block. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will be reviewing the article. First look, I'm not happy. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Copied from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to save here

Four images were deleted without warning from Krrish, which is a GA, so presumably the images were okayed at one time. The image pages do not exist anymore, so how must I know why they were deleted? Can't the image itself be removed but some evidence be left behind? Also, is there not a warning system of some kind? BollyJeff || talk 02:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

According to the deletion log all four were deleted because "F6: Non-free media file with no non-free use rationale". —teb728 t c 04:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The person who tagged the images with {{db-f6}} should have added {{deletable image-caption}} to the captions but apparently did not. (S)he also should have left {{di-no fair use rationale-notice}} on the uploader's talk page. —teb728 t c 04:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The images have been made invisible by the ImageRemovalBot but their code can clearly be seen in this article history page. There used to be a bot that automatically tagged images for deletion at their use point but it is no longer working. The uploader was notified on his user talk page, which is a normal procedure. One way or another the images were all missing a fair-use rationale and in such an article it is unlikely that five non-free images would be acceptable. Having read it I don't see any critical commentary that would justify them being kept even with a rationale as they were likely decorative rather than essential to the reader's understanding of the topic. Their non-free status may have been missed, or ignored, during the GA but I don't see any comments about image use in the GA which was undertaken by three editors who may perhaps not be as familiar with non-free content criteria as they should be and have concentrated only on the prose. We jsut don't know but you are always welcome to have a deletion review or a non-free content review if you feel you have a case. ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I am not the uploader, so I did not get any notice, I was only following the whole article, and did not see any warnings, which would have been nice, since maybe the original uploader is gone now. I saw the article history and tried to go to the image pages, ie. File:Krrish stunt.jpg to see why it was deleted, to see if there was any fair use at all, but there is nothing to see there. Can you show me how to see the deletion log, at least? But, based on what you said above, maybe it had too many pictures anyway? It seems really stupid to me that these pictures cannot be used for this purpose. How could this possibly be costing the owners any money? If anything it is raising interest in the film, which could help them to sell more DVDs. Also are all these picture police paid by WP, or are they volunteers? What is the incentive to make WP articles less interesting? BollyJeff || talk 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can see the deletion log for File:Krrish stunt here. See Wikipedia’s policies on non-free content. (A major part of the reason for these restrictive policies is to make Wikipedia content reusable; using non-free content makes it more difficult to reuse articles.) Note that file was deleted for violation of item 10, which requires a non-free use rationale for each use of a non-free file—not for violation of item 2, which requires respect for commercial opportunities. (As ww2censor pointed out, no valid rationale could have been created because the use did not significantly increase reader understanding as required by item 8.) —teb728 t c 03:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

When you say reuse, do you mean like when I search the web for valid references to try and improve articles and I mainly find multiple other websites that just parrot WP articles back again? That doesn't seem very useful. They are often using various different old versions of the current WP article. Why do we need dozens of websites out there copying WP content? Does WP make money doing this? BollyJeff || talk 11:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Under the terms of GFDL or WP:CC-BY-SA people may copy Wikipedia content (one, some, or all articles, or just a few paragraphs) to another website, a CD, a book, etc. Wikipedia wants to make it easy to do that. And no, Wikipedia doesn't make money on it. —teb728 t c 12:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The images lacked any fair use explanation, and thus were deleted validly. If you check this revision, you can more or less figure out what kind of content they were. If you can make a plausible case that any of them was in fact necessary for the article and justified under WP:NFC, they can of course be undeleted. I'm not seeing such a justification, at least not at first sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not even for the soundtrack? It's pretty standard throughout WP to have pictures of soundtrack covers isn't it? I will try to ask this one more time: When I click on File:Krrish.jpg, I get a copy of the picture, plus fair use, links, can view history, etc. I was hoping to be able to see what information was there on the files that were deleted. Is this not possible? BollyJeff || talk

It is pretty standard to allow one identifying image in the infobox of an article (provided that it could not be replaced by a free equivalent). That way readers can see that they are on the right article. For Krrish the identifying image is the poster. For a separate article on a soundtrack it might be the cover art. There is no need for identifying the soundtrack section in Krrish, for the poster identifies the article. In any case the image had no use rationale; so the image was not permitted.

To see the deletion log: In the “Toolbox” in the left sidebar click “Special pages”; then under “Recent changes and logs” click “Logs”; then select “Deletion log” in the dropdown, enter File:Krrish stunt.jpg in “Title” textbox and press Go. The log tells you who deleted it, when, and what edit summary (s)he gave. That is the only information available except to admins. —teb728 t c 12:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wow, what you are saying just does not jibe with what's out there. I could name many GAs and FAs even that have pictures for soundtracks that do not have their own articles (in addition to other pictures as well). Anyway, thanks to all who replied for your help. BollyJeff || talk 13:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The header that you added to Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films points to an older discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, not the discussion that just finished, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination). Also, how was the final result reached? BollyJeff || talk 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

That appears to be a script error. I'll see about reporting it.

The keep closure was because there was a consensus in favour of keeping the article, in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There needn't be proof for an issue that is so old and it was already discussed and agreed that his original name (which was never changed officially) should be spelled Shahrukh on WP - that's why it appears so. That's not me, that's the other guy who has to cite sources for his claim, and btw, "calling himself" is one unencyclopedic piece of a useless phrase. I don't think he can add sources for the claim that all the books about him and all the films starring him spell his name as Shah Rukh. That's just incorrect. His films use different versions, so do books, and one Google check clearly shows that Shahrukh gives more hits. In addition, IMDb spells his name as Shahrukh, so this guy's claim has to be proved much more than it seems, and the burden of evidence is not on me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually surprised you agree with the other guy because his statement (calls himself, credited in all his films, DVDs, books) is very incorrect and overly generalised. I don't think it can be simpler or clearer than that: his (original) name is Shahrukh and he is often credited as Shah Rukh. Just checked several of the DVDs I own - RNBDJ, Veer-Zaara, Chak De and others and all go with Shahrukh. Of course the argument here is not what the article will be named because it's been Shahrukh for years and moving it has even been disabled, but the way the other name is presented, and the guy's statement is flawed. I commented on the talk page, cannot do more than that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are several discussions on the talk page which you may find if you go through the archives, but there was also one major discussion on a noticeboard which I'll try to find but it's been so long ago that it'll take time for me to find it. Actually, that's not what matters here. What matters is the fact that now the article is named as it is and moving it is not possible for these very reasons. And as I said, the issue is not the article's name, but the guy's text, which I do not agree with, and that's something I explained well on the talk page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another matter entirely. And for Shahrukh Khan or Shah Rukh Khan I don't think its really important. But usually for a naming convention dispute I would see which has the most hits under what spelling in google books. In this case Shahrukh Khan has 7400 hits and Shah Rukh Khan has 18,000 hits so I would probably go for the latter. Similarly a google search shows 5.2 million for Shahrukh Khan and 8.3 million for Shah Rukh Khan. However I believe in his films he is mostly credited as Shahrukh Khan so I think it should be based on what he is generally featured as on cinema posters/DVDs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, for the sake of both the reviewer and the users that articles are nominated for GAN (like yourself, I think that Legolas should probably let someone else review them. I just hope he noticed my comment so that he and I could address the situation. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Am currently improving this. This and Sholay ought to be good articles at least. You are invited to help me promote this to GA..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will try to improve Sholay over the next week. I'd then recommend we get somebody else to review it. It would be very nice to get both Sholay and Mother India up to GA as they are core articles for Indian cinema.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, its looking pretty good. One piece of advice though. When using google books paste the url e.g http://books.google.com/books?id=kfVdxiSm-aYC&pg=PA139#v=onepage&q&f=false into here and click load. It will instantly make a full reference for you. Please fill out the ones from google books in this way. SOmetimes you will have to add the page number if it doesn't show. If you like I will show you how to place google books and google book reference maker into your top itenrary programmed by your monobook for quick and easy referral. It makes high quality writing much more faster and you get more done using it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, much better. If you can ensure they are all filled out and that the date naming system e.g 23 February 2011 not 2011-02-23 etc is all consistent across all references. Every source should contain info on title, publisher etc.

OK. Go into your preferences. Depending on whether you use a monobook or vector standard skin Click monobook js or vector js at the end. Copy the follow text and paste it in: The first is a quick link to google books to save you having to go externally. The second is your google book ref tools to quick draw up citations:

addOnloadHook(function() {  
  addPortletLink('p-cactions','http://books.google.com/','GB','ca-gb');
  });
addOnloadHook(function() {
  addPortletLink('p-cactions','http://reftag.appspot.com/','GB ref','ca-gb ref');
  });

OK save it. Now hold down Ctrl, Shift (upwards arrow on mine) and r if you are using Mozilla firefox browser. If you use Internet Explorer hold down Ctrl and F5 buttons. Now move on and the two highly useful links should be readily accessible at the top of your toolbar next to history, move, watch etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think so because several book sources state that the film was intially scheduled for10th independence anniversary on August 15, 1957 but it didn;t happen. There is also mention of donation of salaries in early October 1957 shortly before the film was released. I suspect that either imdb or Bollywood Hungama copied each other in regards to release and the date is actually false. I will try to find a few sources to back up October.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Even rediff says October 25!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No idea. But I think you are way too trustworthy of websites. Book sources are usually far more accurate. If you can find a sources or two which says 40 million then change it back, I'm only citing what is given in the book.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, just saw your message. Well the main ingredients for films are Plot, Cast, Script, Casting, Filming, Reception/release but if I can I try to find some info about its themes. Usually though I find that sources dictate what you should write about, in mOther India's case it has a lot on themes as themes are what are heavily covered in books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jeff, congrats on the Sholay GAN pass. I'm very proud of you. I'll give you a barnstar when you get your third GA, because I already gave you one recently. :) Way to go, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh definitely it's far tougher to write a BLP on an actor whose work is ongoing, and the criteria is always very demanding. I learnt a lot from my experience on several BLPs. Right now, I've started working on the articles of Rohini Hattangadi, Shabana Azmi. I also started expanding the articles of Kajol and Vidya Balan, but left them midway. But trust me, the current state of articles related to Indian cinema is much better than it used to be, although we've got a long way to go.

Looking at the Shriya Saran article, it's not ready yet, frankly. A first glimpse shows such debatable sites like Newsofap.com, Andhravilas.com, Chitramala.com, sach.co.in, Idlebrain, behindwoods.com. Even thaindian and oneindia have not been supported by several editors on FACs. The career sections are very short and will need some work. I'll make some copyedits to the article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the lead, there are just many redundancies. As for sources, I'm not an expert, but I can assure that those I've mentioned will be questioned in future. WP:RSN may be a good solution as it will make the work on the article more effective and will prevent problems. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since Shahid couldn't, allow me to :)

		The Original Barnstar
		For particularly fine editing displays at both Sholay and Shriya Saran :) - Amog | Talk • contribs 16:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply