Talk:Atul Kulkarni

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maharashtrian?[edit]

This person is born in Belgaum, Karnataka. On which basis is he a Maharashtrian?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No,he is not maharashtrian C21Ktalk 06:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Maharashtrian. His mother tongue is Marathi. Why are kannadigas claiming non-kannadigas as kannadigas? He is pucca marathi full stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.202.124 (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did i claim him as kannadiga?? C21Ktalk 18:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow...what a statement... The person is born in karnataka. how he became maharastrian??. C21Ktalk 08:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this guy can't even speak kannada. then whats the point in writing his name in kannada? i don't understand this. see, raghu dixit was born in nashik and brought up in mysore. so will raghu dixit become a maharashtrian. will you write his name in marathi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.196.143 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He can't speak Kannada??? how do you know that?? you marathi peoples added marathi script in Bhimsen Joshi article. then whats wrong in adding Kannada script in this article. He acted in few Kannada films. I'm going to re-add Kannada script. C21Ktalk 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Atul Kulkarni (actor, born 1965)Atul Kulkarni@BlueMario1016: moved the page to its current name and created a disamb page mentioning another actor Atul Kulkarni (actor born 1989). Another article is currently a red link and has no google search available for the claimed person. Per WP:COMMONNNAME, the article should be moved back to its original name. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support, it should have not been moved in the first place. --Cavarrone 10:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.