User talk:Bollyjeff/Archive 5

Happy New Year, Bollyjeff
 Soham — is wishing you a  Happy New Year ! Welcome the  2014 . Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Talk:Ranveer Singh
Hi Bolly, can you please share your opinion here? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 07:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sholay main page
Hi, do u have any plans of making Sholay appear on the main page? Bcos it appears like a vulnerable and unprotected article due to the film's popularity that may make it lose its FA status, I request u to do something quickly. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Due to the film's cult status and popularity, ip users (and newly registered users too) may destroy the article, and their edits may go unnoticed. That is why I fear the article may soon become unworthy of its FA status. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Apart from just providing readers with complete knowledge, it was made a FA, with the an intention of appearing on the main page (get it? Featured article). If it is denied what it was made for, then that is cruel. If Mother India could appear on the main page, I don't see why Sholay can't. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Finally, Sholay to appear on the main page. A TFA bot has protected it till 9 march 2014, suggesting that may be the date it will appear as TFA. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But it shows some hill as the picture. Can we request them to show the poster instead? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

HAHK....!
Well, I have got few interesting sources, the one is about its success [http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=126 The release of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun was a defining moment in the box office history of Hindi cinema. Hum Aapke Hain was a limited release on hand picked theatres by the makers of the film and prints were only given if theatres were upgraded to a certain level. Due to unparalleled demand for the film after its release, exhibitors upgraded their theatres to get prints of the film. This resulted in ticket prices going up heavily and the family audience which rarely ventured into cinema halls at the time due to sub standard theatres came back in full force and not only did Hum Aapke Hain Kaun smash all records but took business for films released afterwards to another level. To put into perspective how business changed after Hum Aapke Hain Kaun is that before Hum Aapke Hain Kaun an all India share of 10 crore for a big film was regarded as blockbuster business but after Hum Aapke Hain Kaun the blockbuster business figure went to 20 crore.]

and the other has intersting infos.— Prashant 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ranveer Singh
Hi Bolly, have you seen going on removing the film names from all tables? We have had a consensus against this at the talk page of Ranveer Singh as you might remember, however, going on edit warring on this, violating WP:3RR continuously, this is not the way to handle things! Haven't we requested the user to time and again raise this concern in the proper channels like the MOS:films or the Wikiproject films? He/She has failed to do this instead is choosing to edit war. What are your suggestions for this? I have raised this concern with Smarojit/Krimuk also. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 05:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ranveer Singh". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 12:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template is now converted to simple straight fonts
The template is now converted to simple straight fonts and is not italics. As we know that on Wikipedia,Box Office India is used as the primary source for boxoffice figures of Bollywood films.On 20 January 2014,Box Office India revamped its website completely.There is separate page of actors ,actress,each Bollywood film on Box Office India. Its on the lines of reliable sources Box Office Mojo and IMDB templates on wikipedia. For Bollywood films,Box Office India template has to kept for Bollywood films -specific details--Nehapant19 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Box Office India
Of late, many BOI links seem to be dead (as in the case of Sholay and MeA). Therefore I think we must periodically patrol every single Bollywood GA/FA (like Batman and Daredevil spend their nights jumping from roof to roof) and repair all the BOI links with help from Checklinks. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Kailash, I raised the issue much earlier here. They are all dead, if any moment a GA or FA goes under review it stands the risk of getting failed.  Soham  15:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, the Wayback Machine seems to have them all archived. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes but who will add them?  Soham  16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That just gives us a sign of relief that all evidence is not destroyed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To soon to comment about whether they are all present or not. Lets hold a drive over at WP:ICTF. Whacha think?  Soham  16:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You all having a nice conversation on my talk page? Yes, a drive sounds fun. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  17:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Think so. Lets start.  Soham  17:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Template talk:Track listing
No, whoever that ip address was reopened it- I just commented later on and kept the box at the top open when it was re-closed. That being said, I don't think we need to have explicit oppose votes right now- it's pretty clear how every person involved would vote, and the discussion has just stalled out into a no-consensus sniping of opposing aesthetic views, so it looks like the template will just stay as it is. -- Pres N  20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Bollywood movie article changes
Thank you for clarifying that. I understand that Wikipedia has some rules and guidelines, and I respect them. I apologise, but I also feel that if you had just told me that initially, some unpleasantness might have been avoided.

Anyway, while I respect Wikipedia's rules, I sincerely request you to, if possible, try to initiate a little change to the Original Research rule, because currently, it does not let Wikipedia become the point from which the acknowledgement of a certain issue begins. Speaking specifically of this issue, one of the reasons male stars have undeservedly received top billing in certain Bollywood films for so long and continue to do so is that no one seems to be even talking about it, let alone speaking against it. So if this issue can be brought up in a Wikipedia article only if there are separate articles on other websites acknowledging it for every single film in which it is relevant, then it is next to impossible to mention it. As you said yourself, you only found a solitary article acknowledging this issue, and it is virtually impossible to find articles that talk about it for each film, especially if the films are not very popular, such as What's Your Rashee.

Perhaps a relevant change would be that if someone posts facts that can easily be verified (such as who received top billing in a film and how many films that actor has done as opposed to the actress) by simply watching the film or at IMDB or Wikipedia itself, it should be allowed as long as it does not contain an opinion. This is something I was particularly careful about while adding the information to those articles.

This is only a suggestion, and if Wikipedia does not wish to do this and become the source of debate on issues like this, I would respect that and not make any such revisions in the future. However, I would like to point out that there are many articles about Bollywood films that contain uncited and incorrect information but are not changed, often because the films are not popular enough. I daresay these violate the Original Research rules much more than my revisions did, as many of them clearly seek to push an opinion or promote an actor. 122.179.154.60 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding this here here in case you IP changed again:
 * It definitely does not belong in the lead, which is a summary of the important parts of entire article, but if you can find a reliable third party source article (see WP:CITE and WP:RS) that clear mentions the billing inequity for a particular film, then it can be added maybe in the casting or release section of that film. Otherwise, if it is just an observation on your part, it cannot be added, because it amounts to original research (see WP:OR). Try familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policies before making a bunch of edits that may be rightfully reverted by other editors.  Here is a good place to start: A Primer for newcomers. Also, if you create an account, you will always have the same name, not a random IP.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  17:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I searched and could not find any articles bemoaning Priyanka not getting top billing for Raashee, but maybe you can find one. I did find one about SRK starting to give women top billing in his films from Times of India. It was used in Chennai Express, and says that it is traditional for male stars to be placed first.  That doesn't mean that you should add this to every film article though. Hopefully you understand now that wikipedia is based on sources such as books, newspapers, and magazines,  and not the observations of its editors.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but although you may have valid points about the inequity, NOTFORUM or a vehicle to promote change; it is an encyclopedia. You are welcomed and encouraged to improve any and all articles that are lacking information, sources, or have improper promotional content. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Shaku India returns
The adamant user Shaku India's never-ending efforts to "clean" the colourisation section of Mughal-e-Azam are back again. Bcos he claims all the cited material is "wrong" and keeps removing them with no-one to support him, I request u to check the sources and see if he was correct. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Bcos everyone supports yours and Blofeld's verified edits in the section while no-one supports Shaku's original research, it is just best to block her (Shaku is female) due to her adamant nature. I have already ARV'ed her. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Sholay
This is a note to let the main editors of Sholay know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 8, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 8, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Sholay is a 1975 action-adventure Indian Hindi film directed by Ramesh Sippy and produced by G. P. Sippy. Shot in the rocky terrain of Ramanagara (pictured), the film follows two criminals, Veeru and Jai (played by Dharmendra and Amitabh Bachchan), hired by a retired police officer (Sanjeev Kumar) to capture the ruthless dacoit Gabbar Singh (Amjad Khan). When first released, Sholay received negative critical reviews and a tepid commercial response, but favourable word-of-mouth publicity helped it to become a box office success. It broke records for continuous showings in many theatres across India, and ran for more than five years at Mumbai's Minerva theatre. The film drew heavily from the conventions of Westerns, and is a defining example of the masala genre. The film's dialogues and certain characters became extremely popular, contributing to numerous cultural memes and becoming part of India's daily vernacular. In 2002, Sholay ranked first in the British Film Institute's list of "Top 10 Indian Films" of all time. It was re-released in 3D in January 2014. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The date does not signify anything for the film. But that's ok, it's appearing in the main page at least :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, again
Hi, can you comment here? Thanks. -- kri muk   90 04:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Koffee with Rahul
Welcome to Koffee with Rahul! Smaro and I are competing for the hamper. Let's see how you do! ;)
 * 1) Rank in order of acting talent: Deepika, Kareena, Katrina, Priyanka, Vidya
 * 2) Rank in order of acting talent: Aamir, Hrithik, Ranbir, Salman, Shahrukh
 * 3) The number one actor and actress today
 * 4) An over-rated actor and actress
 * 5) Who has a brighter future: Alia, Anushka, Parineeti, Shraddha, Sonakshi, Sonam
 * 6) Who has a brighter future: Aditya, Arjun, Ranveer, Sidharth, Sushant, Varun
 * 7) A film you think was over-rated
 * 8) A recent film that you saw that you liked/hated
 * 9) Vidya's best performance/film
 * 10) Your top 5 favourite films within the past 10 years (2003-13) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 05:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. Fine! :P Speaking of Chopra, what are your thoughts on the recent sub-section that was created in her "acting career" section? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 14:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been missing out buddy! If not one of, but Irrfan Khan can easily be called Bollywood's most under-rated actor. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 02:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 23:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

HANK...!
I can translate the video in Hindi for you. —Soham 09:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1:14:43 — Damn lot of time. —Soham 09:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DOB Sourcing
Just the one source is ok but if you look [] when I removed it, it wasn't sourced. I'm not sure if you thought it was? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Make it two, Jeff. One from me as well for your hardwork. —Soham (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hell, yeah! Great seeing Sholay on the main page, Bollyjeff. Well done. :) -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  09:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone! BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Congratulations from me too! :-) Keep up the good work! AB01 '' I'M A POTATO 05:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Rani Mukerji
This is a note to let the main editors of Rani Mukerji know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 21, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 21, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Rani Mukerji (born 1978) is an Indian film actress. Through her successful Bollywood (Hindi film) acting career, she has become one of the most high-profile celebrities in India. Mukerji has received seven Filmfare Awards from fourteen nominations, and her film roles have been cited as a significant departure from the traditional portrayal of women in mainstream Hindi cinema. Mukerji began a full-time career in film in 1997 and had her first major success with the 1998 romance Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. In 2002 she was acclaimed for her role in the relationship drama Saathiya, and by the year 2004 she had established herself as a leading actress of Bollywood with roles in the romantic comedy Hum Tum and the dramas Yuva and Veer-Zaara. She achieved further success for her leading roles in Black (2005) and Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (2006). After starring in a series of unsuccessful films, she featured in the successful thrillers No One Killed Jessica (2011) and Talaash: The Answer Lies Within (2012). In addition to acting in films, Mukerji has been actively involved with several humanitarian causes and is vocal about issues faced by women and children. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!
The article Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 18:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What next?
Now you have made an excellent achievement by making a GA/FA out of at least one article in different decades like Mughal-e-Azam (60's), Sholay (70's) and Hum Aapke Hai Kaun (90's). Mother India (50's) is also a FA if you knew. So what next? Should it be Alam Ara (30's) or any 80's film? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, what is next? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Deewar (1975 film) might be a good one. It is one of the few Indian films in my 1001 movies book and it has it but not Sholay of the same year!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , 1001 movies book? Do you have a link for the same. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 14:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Strongly recommend it. I have the 2011 edition with Tinker Tailor on the cover. You can buy it here. One of the best books I've ever bought. Will watch Ukigusa later, saw India Song earlier.. It has very few Indian film in it aside from the Apu trilogy, I think Deewar is the only Bollywood film in the book. They should do spin offs like 101 Indian Movies You Must See Before You Die! The book is compiled by tons of notable critics and scholars who've whittled down the list. They seem to rate Deewar as the greatest/most prominent Bollywood movie. Might be worth working on it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting to know that Deewar is the only Bollywood film which finds a mention. Any films from regional cinema apart from The Apu Trilogy? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 14:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Jalsaghar and Meghe Dhaka Tara are the only other Indian films I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, it has some regional flavour albeit restricted to Bengali films :) &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have used that as a source in Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, and it is listed here along with Mother India too, both Bollywood. Since they do not break it down by country on the web, it's hard to know what else is in there.  Of course, it you own the book, you can read it. Looks like they update it sometimes.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so it actually has three Bollywood films in the 2012 edition, my mistake, I missed that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I may work on Bicycle Thieves next. It is a film that I like, and is listed as level 4 vital article.

Veronica Linklater
You did not provide a reason for reverting. Quis separabit? 01:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looked like vandalism. I apologize if it was a mistake.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, no problems. Thanks for looking out. Quis separabit?  02:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Pather Panchali comments
Hi. No I did not notice your comments in the talk page. Now I am going to attend to those. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

why are you continually bugged by application of policy?
while the practice may exist, they are clearly WP:OR - content making claims and analysis that are not specifically citable to any reliable source and purely the creation of wikipedia editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverting Edits
Hello Bollyjeff,

Although I am glad to see your anti-vandal diligence, I would like to bring one thing to your attention. When you revert an edit, it is often helpful/insightful if you warn/inform the user that you have reverted his/her edits and why you have done so. This way, the message is clearly communicated. I thought I might tell you; the rest is up to you. JustBerry (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bollyjeff. I hate to pile on, but I agree warning the user after reverting their edits would be very helpful to both the user and other patrollers. The message informs the the user that what they did was wrong and what they should expect. Meanwhile as warnings escalate, other patrollers and semi-automated software can react accordingly, such as reporting the user to WP:AIV. I understand you may not be using the more popular RCP tools. Both Huggle and STiki will automatically post warnings on the user's page, or report them to AIV if the final warning was already issued. Hope this helps, and thanks! &mdash; MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 02:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My feeling was that if it's obvious vandalism, then they know what they're doing; the warnings often don't matter to them anyway, and are a waste of my time. If these other tools help automate the warning system, then I will see about using them in the near future.  They seemed pretty complicated when I first glanced at them.  Thank you.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is correct, the warnings do affect how semi-automatic tools and automated bots will react to further disruption from that particular user. Again most of these tools will issue the warnings for you. If you need to do it manually, use Twinke, which makes issuing whatever type of warning and level you want considerably easier. Please also note that regardless of how severe the vandalism may be, every user deserves a warning. In most cases, administrators at AIV will not block a user unless they have been warned. More at WP:VAND. Thanks for your understanding, and moreover, your efforts to keep the wiki clean. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 14:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I think that's about it. --JustBerry (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am using Huggle now. But what happens, since leaving warning messages, I now get attacked directly by the vandals.  In the last couple days, I have had my user page vandalized by the people I was reverting.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  00:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You are fast
I was just using the Lupen tool, and every time I found something bad, you had already fixed it. How? Is there a better tool in use by you or the Counter-Vandalism Unit? BollyJeff &#124;  talk  17:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, the Lupin anti-vandalim tool - thats the tool i used exclusively back when i first joined Wikipedia. Decent tool, though these days it is barely used since other tools have more or less superseded it in terms of efficiency and accuracy. There is two tools i would recommend for vandalism patrol:
 * Huggle - My preferred tool for vandalism patrol these days. Huggle preloads every edit made into a queue and allows you to view its diff (Exception: Users who are whitelisted are skipped). One key press or mouse-click is enough to revert and warn the user, and while Huggle takes care of reverting and warning the next diff is already displayed thus allowing for extremely high patrol speeds.
 * Stiki - Stiki is similar to Huggle in the sense that it displays diffs and allows for one click revert-and-warning. Unlike Huggle it does not display recent changes - instead STiki is a server based application where one central server supplies STiki users with edits that were not yet checked. These edits are served based on Cluebot's ranking, which results in the most likely problematic edits being served first. This allows STiki to serve edits hours to days after they were made, which is convenient if there was a shortage of vandalism patrols during a certain timeframe.


 * Aside from that there are a few other tools such as Igloo, but since i never used those i cannot really comment on their usability or setup. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Gemini FAC
Gemini (2002 Tamil film) is at its second FAC after the first one stalled due to lack of activity. So please check whether your concerns from the first FAC have been addressed, (you are always welcome to add more) if they have been so, you can give a support comment. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be free (fighting vandalism isn't anything big if you continuously check your watchlist), so do please comment on the FAC page of Gemini when you have time. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for striking Blofeld's comments. The reasons were: 1. His words would be unaffected by my striking and 2. His comments were resolved. Because even if they were solved, his comments would be considered by any FAC admin as "unsolved" because he did not give a "Support" tag. Can his comments be unstriked now? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to un-strike them and add 'done' where appropriate. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks your support. Hope I have made up for my absence in the past week. -- Sriram  speak up  16:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

German Raider Atlantis
Hi - as it happened I just reread the Bantam War Book "The German Raider Atlantis," by Captain Bernhard Rogge and Wolfgang Frank, copyright 1956, translation 1979. Then I decided to see what Wikipedia had to say, and spotted an error in the description of the ship and its weapons.

On page 7 of the paperback edition I have, Rogge recounts his discussions, while fitting out the Atlantis, with Commander Neger, who was the captain of the WWI raider Wolf. From those discussions Rogge determined to have the flaps concealing the side guns raised up with counterweights, rather than folding down. He describes folding down as "an unpractical system because they not only made a lot of noise when operated but they failed to provide adequate protection from heavy seas."

So the entry stating these flaps folded down is quite incorrect. A small matter, but one which ought to be correct.

I am basically unfamiliar with how to edit Wikipedia entries, although I once was able to correct one describing a mountain climbing route. Perhaps you would be so kind, with your knowledge of this system, to make this small correction to the Atlantis story?

71.208.229.160 (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Walt Fricke Boulder, Colorado, USA71.208.229.160 (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Carrie
That's ok. I actually deleted the plot template by accident when I was reverting the IP's plot bloat. Sorry about that. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Real life- send me an angel edit: Thank you for fixing it for me. I couldn't figure it out, my first time trying to make an edit. June 6th, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.248.145 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

talk: mental breakdown page
Hello I just wanted to remove that one line because I thought it was too controversial for wiki and may also dissuade women with mental illness from seeking help. It is also not evidence based. Perhaps you have other ideas of how to deal with it? Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.65.174 (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

KK
Haha, thanks, man :D Hmmm..she told a TOI reporter that they split when they (her siblings and herself) were very young. Though, I've researched a bit on this. It's not necessary that children take on their father's surname. Like, it says here that "Children normally take the surname of their father unless their mother wishes them to have a different surname and the father agrees to this." And it says here that "In Britain, you're free to give your child whatever name you choose [...] Whoever registers the birth can give the child any name and surname they choose. Even if you are registered on the birth certificate as the baby’s father, you have no right to insist that the child is given your surname. Married couples can choose any surname for their children – the surname does not have to be that of either parent." So, I'm thinking that something like that might have happened with her. I've tried to look for a source explaining all this, but it's hard to find something relevant considering Katrina's reluctance to speak about her background and all AB01 '' I'M A POTATO 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey bud! I was wondering if you could be of some help. A certain editor is going around redirecting all the IIFA award pages citing various claims instead of improving the article by adding sources himself. Some people just never learn! :( --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 02:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk: Samgrigg
Why did you change my edit on the conservative party page? I thought it was funny :P

Ventriloquism revert
Please can you review this revert. Thanks. 86.153.57.241 (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 86.153.57.241 (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this
Sockpuppet investigations/TrueChinaHistory. There are definitely some issues about some of these identifications, but at the same time there was an important Muslim influence in China. It will take me time to fix all this. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No sockpuppetry as it turns out. But some articles to be fixed. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm doing this wrong but I need your help editing some inaccuracies on a couple of pages. I'm londonishstyle. Please contact me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonishstyle (talk • contribs) 13:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618013363 your edit] to Shah Rukh Khan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * efn|There was some confusion because Khan seemingly contradicted himself in a Tweet, saying that he
 * 11 August 2013|title=Box Office 2000|publisher=Box Office India|accessdate=13 May 2014}} Vinayak Chakravorty of Hindustan Times wrote that Khan "basks in his tailormade

Hello!
I've noticed you've nominated Shahrukh Khan's article for GA. I've also nominated Katrina Kaif's article for the same. So, I have a proposition, if you're willing to accept. How about we review each other's nomination? What do you think?? AB01 '' I'M A POTATO 09:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. No problem! I think I will review Shahrukh regardless. AB01 '' I'M A POTATO 01:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's my 1st GA review, so my apologies for that! But, I'll definitely keep it open. You're doing a good job so far :-) AB01 '' I'M A POTATO 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shah Rukh Khan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shah Rukh Khan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AB01 -- AB01 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shah Rukh Khan
The article Shah Rukh Khan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Shah Rukh Khan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AB01 -- AB01 (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

BLPN
Per your objections I opened this discussion for a greater consensus. [] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shah Rukh Khan
The article Shah Rukh Khan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shah Rukh Khan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AB01 -- AB01 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Seconded. Major kudos for promoting one of Asian cinema's core articles!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Why?
Care to explain this revert of an obviously-constructive edit? StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for my reply to your message. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Little Help
Hi, can you give me some grammar help to this. I'm novice for such articles and have very little knowledge on how to take it to good level. Though I have tried my level best, but it feels like I am missing something. Please assist. Wishes. -- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Never mind, Thanks for attention.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hum Aapke Hain Koun
The film has turned 20 this year. So there are many news articles on it. You can finds some information from here and here. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> film actress

Thank you for quality contributions to articles such as Sholay and Priyanka Chopra, a "magnificent achievement and a shining day for Indian cinema", and for, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 575th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a mistake
Someone had gotten in to my phone and changed it but I did not realize anything had been changed so I am very sorry for this mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yungleandoer (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies
Sorry for reverting you at Langham Creek High School. My PC is slowing to a crawl and I clicked off onto the rollback without meaning to. Sorry about that :( <font color="Blue">Ish <font color="Green">dar <font color="Red">ian  03:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My first FAC
I have nominated Chandralekha (1948 film) for FA, coincidentally it is my first FAC attempt. Please feel free to comment on the FAC page. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Got anything to say? Even a "no" is fine. Only ignorance hurts. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * are you going to be able to address my last two concerns with the bibliography, and change that one sentence to clearly indicate that it was Vasantha who was leaving Gemini for Modern Theatres? Then I can give a verdict.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  17:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. Is it good that I write that Vasan removed Vasantha, because she was then leaving Gemini Studios? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ written "she was then leaving Gemini Studios permanently for Modern Theatres". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Shah Rukh Khan
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I made a mistake
Yes I made a mistake. It is corrected now. Thanks for correcting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.84.10 (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blanche Wiesen Cook
The reason why I made the change.

1) The text was lifted from another source; at the very least it should be paraphrase 2) It is not libelious if there is other text to back it up 3) Awkward sentence construction. 4) It was unclear whether Elenor Roosevelt or Cook was the "out lesbian" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.154.38 (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If you feel the same way even after I have demonstrated by rationale & I have reverted to what I changed it to, you have my apologies

24.188.154.38 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

_____________________________________

Thank you for your feedback, keep up your efforts with respect to keeping vandalism off wiki 24.188.154.38 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
I was in the middle of correcting those errors I had just made when making an edit (spelling and formatting mistakes) when you jumped in to correct them! Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra
Hi Bolly, how are you? I have a minor qualm regarding the LEDE section of Chopra. The third para looks a little bit too bloated and ginormous in size compared to the other three paras. It goes into a little bit too much into details and I believe we can streamline and make it much more generic. I know they did not say anything about it in FAC (and that's what you were going to say) but FAC reviews are not the final stoppage for an article. It can still better itself. Hope you reply back. —<font size="2" face="Courier New" color="#6F00FF"> Indian: <font color="#FF033E">BIO  · [ <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#1C1CF0">ChitChat ] 05:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bolly, I was thinking about how the third para can be generalized and not go into too much detail about specific movies. We can talk about generally on her debut and then commercial accomplishments, critical avenues and broadening of her choice of film roles. Any associated awards can go as the opener for the fourth para. I can maybe make a suggestion at the talk page if you like. —<font size="2" face="Courier New" color="#6F00FF"> Indian: <font color="#FF033E">BIO  · [ <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#1C1CF0">ChitChat ] 12:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Caleb Lawrence McGillvary
Hey, just curious as to why you reverted my edit to Caleb Lawrence McGillvary? It was an accurate edit, and the statement in the article that what was there was his last Facebook post was innacurate. Thanks! -Aequitas3 33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aequitas333 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't from a random website... That was directly from the sourced page that you reverted *back* to, and left up. From a direct conversation of said guy with the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aequitas333 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd also think that that conversation potentially being the cause of him murdering someone is quite notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aequitas333 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks !
Thanks for correcting "preseved" to correct "preserved" in article Landskrona. Boeing720 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hiii
sir I have been researching a lot on cannes film festival's various sections. All the information I have added about screenings is correct. So if i say premiered, for example if Mother India is premiered in cannes classics. It means the film is screened, It doesn't mean the film is screened later, and I am adding them. Please check the reference and then comment. I did lot of research on cannes. Let me do my work. Now, I take your suggestion as well

The fifty other along with Mother India come under market section. NOT CANNES CLASSICS SECTION. THE ONLY INDIAN FILM PREMIERED IN CANNES CLASSICS IS MOTHER INDIA FOR THAT YEAR. please go through the website of cannes Pushpakan (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

MOTHER INDIA
Firstly, please try to understand what is Cannes Classics section.

Secondly, MOTHER INDIA WAS NEVER EVER SCREENED AT CANNES BEFORE 2004 cannes film festival. THAT IS THE REASON IT IS INCLUDED IN CANNES CLASSICS

Thirdly, Any film at Cannes under any section will be screened THAT MEANS PREMIERED (PREMIER IN THIS CONTEXT IS NOT FILM PREMIER BEFORE ITS RELEASE) at cannes.

Further, (Competition section or non competition section or market section - every film which is accepted by Cannes will be screened in the respective section of competency)

Finally here is your URL -

http://www.festival-cannes.fr/pt/archives/ficheFilmActualites/id/4194342/year/2004.html

Please please let me do my work, If you have any more questions I will answer you after I complete by cannes contributions. (Pushpakan (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan
Hi Bollyjeff. Hope you've been doing great. Wanted to ask if we've a cite for "biggest film stars in cinematic history". I think it's a huge claim in the lead section. Thanks. Fideliosr (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Bollyjeff! You are doing a fabulous job on this article! I really wish I could be of greater help to you. Do let me know if you need an extra hand, I'll be more than willing to help you take it to through the FAC process. :) -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  03:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on starting the FAC! It's a daunting task.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. My others have all been with partners, so I wanted to see if I could get through one alone. Feel free to make comments. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  16:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will try to revisit soon. Yes, I saw all the points were addressed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also like to post my comments regarding SRK. Ssven2 (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

shahrukh khan
I have made two edits but i cant seem to understand where does it say that a cousin of his fathers family, instead if you want to write you can write his cousin as his cousin is young in his 40s and is his age fellow,. Also in the source where does it state that he was follower of khan abdul gaffar khan, i would really appreciate if you could help me improve the article with the wordings in the references. Thankyou, please try and edit it to his cousin and there is no khan abdul ghaffar khan as he was a very staunch supporter of all india national congress. Saladin1987 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

what is libyan "Nakabwe Shwahabilia" is it real?
i saw you make an edit at libyan civil war 2014, so i wondered if you know what that group with a new flag is i cant find anything about the group or leader on google, so what is it and is it real? 81.235.159.105 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Indian cinema task force
Well, hello there. I've been gone for the past couple of years so I have not been in sync with the happenings around here much. Just now, when I visited the Incine FA page, some articles like Satyajit Ray and Preity Zinta are not there. Is there any specific reason for this? <font face="Batik Regular"><font color="#007FFF">Secret of success · <font color="#967117">talk  14:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, all right. But have we actually reached a consensus and started implementing them? That discussion does not appear to have reached a conclusion. <font face="Batik Regular"><font color="#007FFF">Secret of success · <font color="#967117">talk  18:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, two years have passed. But I have been coaxed to come back and edit with a minimal effort, so I guess I'll be shuttling between wiki and my studies, at least for a short while. But it does fill me with amazement on knowing you and couple of other dudes decided to stay and keep the ball rolling :D <font face="Batik Regular"><font color="#007FFF">Secret of success · <font color="#967117">talk  18:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Chandramukhi and Velaiyilla Pattathari
Bro, I am pleased to inform you that both the articles, which were nominated by me, have passed their GA reviews today. This is my first success as a Wikipedia editor. Ssven2 (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

First Kamal film
Hi Bollyjeff, I am pleased to inform you that my GA nomination for Aval Appadithan was passed straight (without any changes being asked to be made). THe film is the first Kamal Haasan film and the fourth Rajinikanth film to be given a GA status. Ssven2 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

SRK Tamil voice
Can this source be used in the SRK FAC to claim that SRK dubbed his own lines in Tamil for Hey Ram? I think yes, because he says "I had to speak one line in Tamil and I needed 43 takes for that". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Important links
Hey there! I have got some links related to DDLJ. They might be useful, since you are a contributor and might be willing for FA. This and This. Hope they help.— Prashant 09:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld/SRK
I was thinking something like that Jeff and. See, nothing drastic lost but more digestible. The humanitarian content reads fine I think it was just the media related stuff which what it feels like the whole non acting downwards was problematic. I'd be prepared to strike out my oppose if you can both agree to something like that. I do still think some reinforcement work is needed to get it convincingly over the line though and a fair bit of work still needed I think before I'd be happy to support it being promoted. More production info and quotes which say more about the nature of the role I think rather than praise in some places.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks good. It could use a mention of the biographical films and books, but I don't have a source for a general statement. The two links under "Filmography and awards" appear to blend into one. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  17:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One way to deal with that might be a list of films and books about him. You could always create a Shah Rukh Khan bibliography and list all books and films about him there.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit on books and films. OK if I update for now? Unfortunately my access to highbeam expired a few days ago and I'm waiting a renewal. From previous experience I know you can often glean some useful things on production in there without it seeming trivial. I just think we need to ensure it is as good an account of him as possible. I believe you made an attempt to do that which ended up rather long in the media! The most important thing of course is that he reaches FA status before his 50th birthday :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Long before, to try and get it scheduled for TFA. How much production info is really needed? Again, I don't want to duplicate too much of what is in the film articles. There is probably plenty of unused info in the existing sources, if you tell me what's missing in your opinion.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not too much. Just some embellishments which I think will improve general readability and comprehension. Anything really which breaks the starred in xxx, xxx was critically acclaimed and earned xxx, he was praised and won Filmfare.. cycle. A good idea I think is from 2000 onwards google book search the name of the film and his name and see if you can pick up anything in google books. I did that last night on the late 90s. Thanks for spotting the Pardes one, it does say it here but you're right it's referring to a different film.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
I have opened a peer review for Rajinikanth filmography. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 11:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
For catching my faulty AWB edit on Dhoom (film series). Not sure what I was thinking there. &mdash; <font face="Georgia" color="#000000">kikichugirl <font color="#8A37F0">speak up! 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A request
In this edit you let an editing tool unnecessarily rewrite a recently added reference. The tool may have suggested this edit, but you authorized it.

I strongly encourage you to reconsider allowing robot tools to make this kind of edit. Various wikidocument discourage rewriting references. Some people prefer to cramming all the fields in a cite template onto a single line. Others prefer to place one field per line. I am not aware of any wikidocument that recommends one style over another.

I can't tell you how many times the google alerts I set in place have told me of a new reference that I should consider adding to material I contributed year or months ago, and I have gone to the relevant article, and tried to use our history mechanism to compare the last version I contributed to, with the current version, and was greeted by a diff that looked like the article had been massively rewritten. Of course there is nothing wrong with other contributors rewriting or updating articles. I merely wanted to see how the article's intellectual content had changed. I've wasted hundreds of hours stepping through the revision history of these articles, when I am greeeted by a diff that implied massive change, only to be really pissed off, after stepping through the diffs, one at a time, only to find that all, or almost all, of those apparently massive changes were mere cosmetic reformatting of the articles metadata. Time after time articles where a history comparison suggested massive changes in fact had changes to the internal appearance of the metadata, that would have been invisible to our readers.

Your recent edit was one of those kinds of misleading and unnecessary edits. I am going to repeat my strong urging that you refrain from making these kinds of edits, refrain from using automated tools that make them, without telling you, and encourage you to discourage tool writers from including this kind of aggressiveness in their tools.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You left your reply on User talk:Geo Swan. I prefer to have the discussion in a single location, so, if it not too much trouble to you, I will reply here.


 * I prefer the one field per line style, for several reasons. Placing the citation within the Reflist template is supported, and, by doing so, I cause the least disruption to the article's revision history.  I don't rewrite references left by other people, unless they are old-fashioned bare-urls, or are seriously broken.  If I add fields, like  | archivedate = | archiveurl = | deadurl = no  fields, I do so in whatever style the reference previously used.  It is more effort for me, but I do so out of respect for the contributor who originally added the reference.  I don't want to unnecessarily undermine the utility of the revision history mechanism for them.


 * I think it is completely reasonable for me to generally expect the same courtesy from other contributors. I think it is reasonable for me to expect that courtesy from you.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of WP:MOS says: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[a] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Enough said. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  03:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I believe you have misinterpreted WP:MOS. Almost all wikipedia articles use the HTML directives, and wrap them around a cite template.  A small number of articles use INCOMPATIBLE sets of templates: see Help:Citation Style 2 and WP:HARVARD; see Help:Citation Style Vancouver.


 * Have you ever noticed the template in the wikimarkup drop down menu?  It is part of the incompatible HARVARD citation style.  I used to use that style, eight years ago, before support for wrapping a pair around a cite template became possible.  Articles that mix these two styles will have a list of numbered references where the numbering restarts in the middle.


 * I suggest if you re-read WP:MOS, you'll see it allows me to place the body of the cite templates within the Reflist template. WP:MOS allows me to add additional cite templates where I place each field on a single line, even if other cite templates in the article place all the fields on a single line.  Why?  Because whether a cite template has each field on a single line, or all on the same line, they are both using the same style.


 * One of the things I think WP:MOS warns against is, well, um, what you did -- that is unnecessarily rearranging a reference someone else wrote so it appears more aesthetically pleasing to you, in your editor. In addition to the reasons I listed above as to why what you did is a bad idea, let me point out that anytime someone rearranges the internal appearance of a reference for aesthetic reasons the possibility exists a mistake may be made that could screw up a reference that was previously working.


 * So, "enough said"? No, sorry, not when I think you are interpreting WP:MOS 180 degrees backwards.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Bollyjeff!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Bollyjeff, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. — Ssven2  speak 2 me 07:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.