User talk:Pa7/Archive 5

Lead
As per the WP:LEAD, the automatic peer review on the talk page I have expanded the intro para in Preity Zinta's page. You can see how it should actually be written on Jolie's page. If you have new ideas, please share.

This is the section which has to summarize the whole article:

Making her acting debut in Mani Ratnam's Dil Se (1998), Zinta had her first commercial success with Soldier from the same year, and was widely recognized with Kundan Shah's Kya Kehna'' (2000). She went to enact different and diverse roles during her career, keeping versatility as an actress.''

Could you help me to expand it? Do you any new ideas? I'd like to add the Filmfare awards for example. I think Anjelina has a wondeful intro. Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm Pa7 if you can please remove these festivals from Kareena's page too. A user there copies the format of Rani/Preity. It's fine by me, but I'm busy now with Rekha's filmo, so please remove it if you can. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 14:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Added rationale. Thank you. -- Pa7 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Preity Zinta
I haven't yet reverted your edits. I strongly disagree regarding The Hero, and don't get the matter of Salaam Namaste. Please go and discuss things on the talk page indicated above. In any case, you will not respond to my messages, so, who knows, maybe you stick to the article talk page. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
First of all regarding my user page. I'm so sorry if I offended you or someone else. It was not my intention, and BTW, feel free to edit my user page.

Yes I'm aware of the fact that all of you guys had been working on these pages, but actually, that's why I provided diffs from one point to another. If you look with more observation, you will see that during the indicated period of time, I was nearly the only one who worked on these pages, and the expansion provided from one diff to another, was made almost wholly by me. I didn't include that time when you, Plum ,Zora were doing your edits there. See Manisha Koirala's history. Except for some anons who've been correcting one word here and other sentence there, I was the only one who expanded the page. The intro, the controversies, award nominations, career all as one were added/modified by me. That's why I didn't add SRK, since other users were involved there.

you do it bit by bit and not on one go It was the most offensive thing I heard from you. I mostly expanded the page, the controversies, the career, the intro as you know, the commitments - added by me, so how can you say that? Even the Wikiquotes. Perhaps you don't know and I don't want you to think I'm boastful but I did a lot of work here on WP. Rekha for example, I was fighting day and night with WP:RM, administrators to change it from Rekha Ganesan to Rekha. I had requested the National Film Awards to be added to Infobox actor and then displayed it on the winner's pages. I was the one who fought with Shez_15 for everything. If not me you would come today and find Zinta at the bottom of every film cast, and Mukerji at the very beginning of EVERY film. I have a list of sock puppets of Shez and watched every every edit secretly, reverting it everyday.

You may not appreciate my work so much, but I did. And I didn't underrate you or Plum or Zora. That's why you all are located in my emulation list. Cause I appreciate you.

As for Zinta, I want the page to be expanded. Yes I do. She is much involved in the media. She also calls herself Conteroveersy's child so what's the matter? Why not expanding it? The Bharat Shah case was a big and famous media involved controversy. Shilpa's links to the mafia weren't. However, look the differences. Why don't you take some good task and expand it like Ekhantik did with Shilpa? I'll be honest and say that you just keep removing things. I know and admit that you just want the page to be as much encyclopedic as it can be possible, but the fact is that you can also be wrong, you're not a robot. See Jolie's career and see Zinta's and Mukerji's one. Why can't we have something similar? What's wrong with Bollywood? And did Jolie give a better performance in Tomb Raider then Mukerji in Black?

I know it sounds kinda Shahid is a die-hard fan of Zinta, but no. I adore her and I think Mukerji is also brilliant. Nowadays, Zinta is my favorite and I really think that she is the best actress of this generation cause she has given brilliant performances and excited me with every film, from KK to DHT to KHNH to KANK. However, for me Koirala and the elder Kapoor are way way better than both Zinta and Mukerji.

As for your ignorance, you have ignored me so many times, but I always kept silence and held back. But it's OK. I was turning to you because back in time you told me word for word: If you need help with anything, don't hesitate and contact me. And the day before yesterday I took the decision to not annoy and irk you anymore cause I realised "If ignorance was bliss, I would be blessed"...

Here is the diff where you removed The hero fact and the Hero is the most expensive. I remember that from various promos and the source that indicates so is there attached to the sentence.

I didn't talk about Her locations in London, New York etc. Australia is the most notable since it is the first hindi film to be entirely shot etc etc... But it's OK forget it.

Sorry if I said something offensive. I know I talked too much. My best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think nothing about you.
 * nearly a year and a half ago about his edits - And I'm talking about half a year ago. All of the names you mentioned except Haphar (Who works on other things now) and you (whom we hardly see here) left WP, and yes - I was fighting him.
 * I apologized on the talk page. Just like I said that in front of everyone. I'm sorry.
 * I know you worked on Wikiquote and you worked here under your IP adress, and I know what your IP adress is, and I appreciate you for adding all the image rationales, when you came back after the surgery. However, recently there were additions of rapid fires from KWK where people choose Rani above Aish and quotes where Rani says Preity talks too much etc, LOL... And I was there to prevent it.
 * Feel free to think that I'm arrogant. You're entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine. I don't really care. If I provided you my contributions, is because of the bit by bit.
 * you feel that some of the pages you edited are down to you - It was another quite offensive comment. I have naver said that. But I'm not waiting for your apology anyway.
 * What you write on your user page is your buisness and for me to change things on your user page is wrong - So why did you say that? I provided diffs and my explanations are there in the above message. That's all.
 * Here this message comes to an end, just like I hope, this unpleasant argument comes to an end too. Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything is OK. I'm putting end to these endless arguments. I'm busy, there is a film director and nobody took care of her. Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I found out that I don't emulate you, that's all. Cheers, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. in fact I was just waiting for your message, it was a little check, and now in comes to its previous status, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, it was just a little attempt. I don't really understand what you mean by at my expense. But if you don't want your name to appear there and don't let me adding your name, it is your right, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's start again on Rani
I don't want Haphar to know this. But let's get on without him. JUst edit the page. And I'll be okay with it as long as you don't remove whatever Haphar removed. All about her childhood story and college. Just don't look at his edits. Go on and read and fix whatever needs to be fixed. I won't interfere. As for Khandala, I know you want it removed. I think it's the wording. Don't put performance. Put people noticed her because the song was popular. Thanks. Good luck with everything. I'll be leaving wikipedia. And I just want to leave things right. Best Regards. - shez_15

KWK
''It had to be written in prose, because wikipedia does not really accept lists. If you want to show what couples came on you can say the following guest came together: Shahrukh Khan and Kajol, Rani Mukerji and Kareena Kapoor.... etc etc. That's what I was going to do but I elaborated a bit and thought that just saying these people came together would be quite boring. But if we've got a written section now, I don't think they will mind if we have a list as well''

That was what you wrote to me that time. I had the feeling that you try to make me look bad in front of everybody and it's not right. I even saw the oprah page b4 re-adding the list that time, and that's why I asked you (and removed the message after that cause I thought it's unnecessary) but you said it's OK - and now your edit summary looks like we have never had this discussion regarding the show. I have no problem and I don't really care but that was UNFAIR, because I personally came to you for that and asked you if that is permitted, and you agreed. Double-standarsts? That's all. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  06:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A)That's not an assumption. You were not fair, and just like you can express your assumptions, I can express mine and don't have to keep them to myself, and BTW try to choose your words before directing them to me. I don't react good to such unpleasant talking manners.
 * B) I totally agree regarding Kapoor. You gave a good explanation. Just needs a little rephrase.
 * C) No, you don't have to inform me about every edit of yours, but you could have mentioned that in the edit summary instead of saying It's not acceptable/necessary cause it sounds like we have never had a discussion regarding KWK. I still think it was unfair toward me. That's all. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  10:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * is it necessary to have the directors? - Do you think mentioning directors is unnecessary. Mmm I don't know I was also a bit skeptical about this. If you see Jolie's page. Almost every new section on some film mentions the directors and the co-stars (even in a new sentence, if you see).
 * I don't know. What do you think? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The last thing, User:Grenavitar created filmography pages for Shabana Azmi and if you see, there is no comma there. And if you see other filmographies you will notice - there is no comma in any of the filmos. So I'll redirect it. BTW, as per WP:FU, fair use images are not permitted in infoboxes to depict living people. They are permitted in the text body for a critical commentary, and it is in Rekha's page - she is older there as a mother so it's permitted actually. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  10:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It was exactly what you wanted to say, but I said it - not you. You had enough unpleasant messages in the past. I had too. Karisma did surprise - she was known as a good actress, but she was mainly working in comedies - not such realistic films like Fiza. Oh I like this film so much - and she did surprise. I can provide a lot of sources. Filmo - I just followed the rules. That's all. Cheers, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  13:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I gotta go now, I'll answer the question later. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  13:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're unfair not because of your reversion. Not at all. You have your right to revert things as do I. You were not being fair, removing the lists of KWK, saying that was the reason I wrote in prose/if you look back to your edits 23rd July, there was a template saying the list had to be written in prose, lists are not usually accepted on Wikipedia.
 * You pretented as if my edits had been wrong, as if I hadn't discussed it before, and I came to discuss it actually, but that's something you didn't mention here - if you look back to your edits 23rd July, there was a template but that was exactly why I turned to you and asked you if that is permitted. It was OK for you, but your last quoted summary (if you look back...) seemed like we have never had this discussion. In other words, you turned out as great, and I was bad. it's OK, forget it. You're busy, I'm busy.
 * seems that you have been reverting my edits whenever as well - It's actually what I think about your reverts. I have never reverted someone's edits to bother him, all the more so when it comes to you.
 * And now let's stop this stupid argument at all. I know I'm argumentative, stubborn and I will always be like this. In Karisma's page, the intro looks good now. I have sources. I will expand Preity's intro later and Preity's page overall. The Australia fact was quite unimportant and I don't care. But I have other plans and for them I will never concede. Cheers -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't find a reason to apologize, so just don't do it. It doesn't make sense, and I didn't wait for this and I still film in my opinion. It doesn't matter now, the arguments have come to an end. Just a request, if you go through some page, please remove the flag from the infobox. It is not permitted now and has to be removed completely from pages of people. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a reason, and I won't die without your apology. As for the flags - OK. Bye. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The last message - I don't usually apologize when I don't think I need to but if that... - In other words, you're saying that you don't have a real and specific reason to apologize. You didn't even understand your acts and what bothered me so about them, so what's the point in this apology? That's why I said what I said - I don't need it. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry? In the present and in the future I write and will write whatever I want and think and that's all whether you like that or not. That's all. The End. End of arguments. Bye. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead
First of all, thanks for the message.

Yep the lead looks very good. I do think successful can be added there. She was part of many successful films after KK (critically and commercially - still a success). Make your research. Mission Kashmir and CCCC did quite well, while DCH was a success by critics (also being a major grosser). DHT was a springboard in her career so I think it's OK to add it, but if you odn't add it it still sounds good, cause it is a neutral statement. If you don't mention success it doesn't necessarily mean failure. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Successful can be added as before KHNH, she had KMG and more films that I mentioned above. In fact, 2003 was a year of big successes. Every film was a high-profile film, prominent film makers. I think, if she hadn't been good b4, she wouldn't have been signed for these films at all. What do you think?
 * Another thing is that I want to add Veer-Zaara and KANK (for KANK I'm not sure). Her career did not end with KHNH. Veer-Zaara was directed by Yash Chopra, it was a huge success in India (perhaps her biggest so far) and abroad and her role was appreciated. As for KANK, it is the biggest hit in the overseas market ever, and she somehow turned her career with the film, but regarding KANK, I'm not sure cause she was the supporting and this year she seems to work in Parallel cinema so it sounds as a bigger turning point than KANK, so here I need your opinion. It still sounds disorganized overall. What do you think? -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the common denominator of KANK and SN that she was a strong, independent and wentern woman. Yes, she was strong in Sangharsh, Kya Kehna and so on, but that's why I added the versatility fact, but Salaam Namaste and KANK were big hits overseas, and the reviews for KANK for Preity were good and she was nominated and it's an honour. If you remember the period before the release of KANK, Preity was shown everywhere with her new look and role of a mother to a school kid. I was a bit incomplete with the lead, because it introduced only box office successes but the fact is that she is regarded as a good actress and has many acclaimed projects to her name, and big hits were not hits solely, but earned her good reviews. In fact, her roles were praised, and roles description is not a big deal, and I do understand your motives, and if we remove that, I'd like to include the fact that her roles were different from typical roles played by Indian actresses. I have refs, but we talk about that latter.


 * Yes I strongly support the addition of 2007 and the Art Film directors. I'm also surprised and I really appreciate Jahnu Baruah and Rituda for signing Preity. You know, I didn't imagine and I'm happy, cause for me, Ghosh is way better than Sanjay L Bhansali. However, not even one of these films have been released yet (and it doesn't matter, cause they are Art directors) but your suggestion is quite good. I started a new topic on Preity's talk page so let's discuss it there and work on the lead there when you will be here.


 * OK, will watch the page CDI, by the way, a good film. TRRP and JBJ dissapointed, and here SRK was great. Vidya was not as notable as I expected but it's OK. Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
First of all yeh I have a good birthday I'm 20 years old now and I'm happy with everything, especially with our renewed attitude LOL;)

I'm happy you agree with me. I'll be happy to discuss it all, when you have leisure for it. It's not an emergency now. I did like TRRP and JBJ. The films were dissapointments bacause I expected for something more special, especially from JBJ. CDI was very nice and way better, but I'm not so fascinated to buy the DVD. I have seen many films of Ritu. He is a magician! I'm serious! Every actor who works with him looks so differend and Ritu turns him upside down, it's just a revelation what he makes! For example, I didn't believe it's actually Ash whom I saw in Raincoat, she was brilliant and was the most deserved to win the awards of 2004. And that's what I think of Jahnu Barua. MGKNM is a masterpiece!

I have seen many films this year. LCMD looks good and Rani seems having done a good job, but it just doesn't appeal to me so much, I don't even know why... I'm anxiously waiting for Madhuri, just like yourself. Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it's all right but I don't know if we should add all the awards to the lead. I think NFA and Filmfare are the most deserved to that. I would be happy to add Screen and IIFA, but the problem is that Bollywood includes so many awards so it is not even suitable for the info box coz it will cause to big wars of which award ceremony is more or less popular.


 * Do you know when is the release of The Last Lear in India? Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK thanks! -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Hemamalini.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hemamalini.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 07:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rani
"A feat she accomplished at many other award ceremonies"

I think there is no need to say that. We didn't say that she had this record only at the Filmfare. We said that she had this record. I rewrote a bit the intro because it was too specifically written. We can't write "in 2004 she starred..." it is more suitable for the career section. A summarization must be short and spot. My rephrase is:

In 2004, her performances in the hit Hum Tum and the critically acclaimed Yuva earned her the Best Actress and the Best Supporting Actress awards at the Filmfare, making her the first actress to win two major awards in the same year, a feat she accomplished at many other award ceremonies.

The last sentence a feat... is quite unnecessary coz it is written that she is the first actress to win two major awards in the same year. We don't say at the Filmfare after that so it refers to every other award ceremony. It is an ultimate record and no need to say that she accomplished it in other places too. BTW, Filmfare is the major award ceremony and the most senior so I think is the most notable when it comes to records rather than six year award ceremonies. Apart from Filmfare she did it in GIFA (which is not a record there. It was it's first one), IIFA and Screen are the most notable - so it's only two or three and not many. Overall, it ruins the whole summation. What do you think?

Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  00:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My meaning is:


 * We say: making her the first actress to win two major awards in the same year. We didn't say: making her the first actress to win two major awards in the same year at the Filmfare so it refers to every other award ceremony, and this statement: a feat she accomplished at many other award ceremonies is unnecessary. That's what I meant and that's what I think. Best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh my dear, no you didn't piss me off:). You're very nice! Yes I strongly disagree with this statement, cause it ruins the lead and it's unnecessary, as I said, but I didn't mean that you offended me by your reply. Not at all. You know the case is that when we say Became the first actress to win two major awards in the same year so it doesn't matter if this is Screen or Filmfare. She had this record and that's all. Had we said Became the first actress to win two major awards in the same year at the Filmfare, it would've been necessary to add this statement (accomplished...), but it's better like this and this statement has to be removed. That's all.


 * Yeh there's much to add, and pages to update and fix, and I will do it. Today, I'm a bit busy and gotta go, but I'm working on different pages now. My best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW PA7 have you seen the Big B and Preity in their new looks? Preity is so beautiful there in saree in a traditional look. WOW!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pa7 please enter. Someone wants to delete our award pages - Articles for deletion/List of Amitabh Bachchan's awards, honours and recognitions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you very much for your kind words. I am really glad that my work is being appreciated. I will do my best to help keep Bollywood articles in good shape. Best Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk  04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Majority of the people on User:Blofeld of SPECTRE's secret note pad have their pics already. I just crossed out the name's of the people that we already have an image of. The only people remaining are Karisma Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Zayed Khan, Kunal Khemu and Fardeen Khan. Only these 5 people from the lists are left. I'll try my best to find images of these people. Best Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk  17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Pa7! I've a question regarding the formats of references. I was looking at Angelina Jolie's article, which in my opinion is one of the best articles on Wikipedia and was confused about something. Why're there two different dates on the ref? One is a "normal date" and the other one is "accessed." What are the differences between the two?? Could you please let me know. Thanks -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk  18:41, 03 October 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen
See Jolie's page and other FA. There are some performances described with two reviews or even more. Saying "Zinta slips into the slippers" is generally good but not sufficient to say that she was praised. The other one is good, and the combination is good. One quote gives the general review which is on the verge of average status, and the other one gives the detailed description, which is more important and shows that she was really praised. I was searching a lot for these reviews. I brought one average and one good. We are not here to glorify her. Yes, we have to look for the best reviews she received for an acclaimed performance, like every other Hollywood page does, but still here it looks better. These reviews are approved for usage, and I have the right to use both of them. A review must be on-the-mark to the right point. A matter-of-fact. When there are typical differences - one review is not enough. What do you think?

I have much more reviews and media related articles for the page - manyyyy plans. I think after that I'll turn to a Peer Reviewer. I have already automatically reviewed the article, as well as other ones too.

The previous image in KHNH was way better in the box, coz Preity is in the center. She is the main protagonist and the only woman. It makes more sense. And specifying sources is not necessarily enforced. Fair use criteria is the most important thing. If it displays a detailed rationale, the image is usually accepted. And whether a source is specified or not, it doesn't matter in which part of the article an image is used -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is another ref for the new film. And Yahooo is a reliable source. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, Its not like Veer-Zaara was a huge turning point in her career (in my opinion).
 * I completely agree that it wasn't such a big revelation for Zinta, but still it was a big international hit. I wasn't blown up by her performance but I liked it though. The film did really well, so it is better to introduce some different points of view. The first review is quite superficial, and the second one is very well and deeply written and the combination is good. I totally agree that we are not here to glorify her, and that's why it's good to have reviews by side, so we can provide facts keeping neutrality. Right?:) I'm still thinking of Veer Zaara and what will be better, I'm not close in my opinion. That's why I didn't write something like she was immensely praised. I said generally and it sounds good. But still I'll think of it.
 * Yeap you're right but I always get lazy to provide sources, it does not matter anyway cause whether it's sourced or not, it is still permitted for usage in every single part of the FILM (not person) article.
 * WOW your new link is GREAT I'll read it now. So long and interesting.
 * And finally, I've heard all praises are for Amitabh in The Last Lear and he's stolen the show. Preity wasn't so noticed compared to the greatest actor in the world, but still she has nice reviews: "It's great to see her doing a completely natural role. She played her role with real dignity and it was a pleasure seeing her getting back to her initial style of acting ". As you know, after Dil Hai Tumhara, she wasn delivering good performances, but not as good as before (in my opinion. I personally liked her more in CCCC, KK, DHT), and I'm happy she is coming into her own and takes more seriously her abilities. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Reviews could never be found as "not neutral" or as glorification acts, coz they're not written by you or me, but by critics, and it's always permitted and even needed. Saying she was praised is very simple. I believe reviews just serve us as direct proofs, it's great. If reviews are mixed, that's exactly what we have to do - add more than one review. If they're generally good, it's good to show the differences, and if they're unanimous great, one representative and well selected good review is sufficient (like in KHNH).


 * Apart from that, a review has to include statements that say something especially unique and memorable about the performance, as we see in Jolie's page. That's all. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert. This page is on my watchlist. If you see her filmo, she has worked every year and had several releases. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, if she did take a break, so it does not belong to the lead, but to the career section cause it is too much specific info. The main periods in her career are the 90s - a star and the 2000s - a performer. And which 2 sabbatical years are you talking about? -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no importance to its length of lines or whatever. The principle idea is that the lead is here to summarize her career, not her breaks. We do can add something like "After a two years break, she did so and so", but not adding a whole sentence dedicated to her break. And as you know, your break says that she came back with - Ziddi! How can it be possible? Ziddi is a 1997 project and she even had releases in 95-96-98 and so on. I read the interview (very interesting, it can serve us later) and years are not indicated. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me be a professional and say that You've added a great synopsis to Daman. Thanks for working on Tandon's page. No-one took care. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I don't own the page dear:) Both you and me have equal rights to edit this page as well as every anon has. "Bound to be a clash" that's was what I felt when you asked me why I was reverting your edits, when it actually was not right. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Listen, you messed up with references! Now I have to format it from outset. And you added them with total mess, names are not in their correct places. God, if you don't know so don't remove things. It took hours to format them. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, LOL Get me blocked, go now, LOL I want to see who will block me because of you (LOL!). You're doing nothing good to the article - I was formatting them and your apologize does not put them back as they precisely were. I don't really understandwhy you tagged that she played diverse roles when it is actually obvious and the references are there. She is regarded as different - If she plays different roles from typical roles, isn't she different? She plays diverse roles - CBI trainee, prostitute, unwed mother, it is exactly what you see there in the ref. So stop annoying me. And now I'm waiting for someone to block me (LOL)... I can't stop laughing. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to YOU? How can you threaten me like this? Who are you? So go now to an admin, I want to see who will block me and for what. What did I say? On the contrary, to your inform - I was nice because I didn't revert and now I'll do the whole work again. I'm really dissapointed to see your messages, so just leave me. I have no time for your useless messages. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is definitely not your business. I have the right and freedom of expression to tell you that I don't consider you as an important editor here, so your acts do not interest me anymore. It is my last message to you. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And please quit stalking me, or I'll turn to another admin to block YOU. Read WP:STALK. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank god!! Too much clutter! I think the user has to read WP:STALK himself since he mis-interpreted it! LOL!! -- Pa7 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved my comments to you on your talk page cause it had no relevance on the article discussion page, as for the comment you just removed: that was a direct comment to me, that's why I moved it here. Our problems between each other has no relevance on that page. Looks like you do not feel the same way. I do not want everyone to know our problems with each other. I was being professional and adding my comments to you on your talk page. I guess you want to insult me and make your thoughts about me clear in front of everyone. -- Pa7 16:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pa the she
Ahhh Meesus. Sorry!!! I know you're a good editor!! I have been trying to make an agreement with a Bollywood website to gain permission to use all there exlcusive images  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes I remember we did some good editing together for Shilpa Shetty who I also found that nice free image for. We are trying to arrange somehting with www.bollywood.blog.com who have photographers based in Mumbai who create the contents there are literally thousands of images not only of actors and actresses but premieres also which could potentially be used in the release areas of film articles. It would be an image gold mine for Indian cinema they constantly have nw images every day made from the photographers they employ. One of the personnel emailed me and said they would be delighted to let wikipedia only use the images but at present there appears to be some diffuculty with the commercial or non-commercial agremeent - hopefully we can find the approproate licensing and begin uploading many images. They have images for thousands of actor swhich as yet don;t have an image -t seems too good to be true but some of the images are lightly marked with the site logo. Meanwhile I've created the List of Bollywood films which needs completing!!Regards  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is cleared yes potentially all images on the site could be used but as I say most do have the light logo on the image which affects high quality but it would make a huge difference. I remember User:Etlantik or whatever his name was was another great editor who I haven't seen around in months. All the best  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S Anytime you have a spare moment filling in the lists gradually would be a great asset - notably for older films for example where the lists are almost empty like Bollywood films of the 1970s. Adios  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent progess thanks I cleaned some of the 70s articles earlier. A few every day or two like so and they'll look mint in no time. ALl the best  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes i love images by all means use whatever you like. Hey have a look at Vale of Glamorgan and you;ll see the image from my attic room window. I have built in gym and bathroom en suite up there too and all my guitars!! I actually have some images of Tibet on my wall and Mallika Sherawat and a Bruce Lee painting which I use as a mentor to keep really fit!! I also took images of Llantwit Major Beach where I visit regularly - I can't believe it was a year ago I took them!! All the best  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah Jack Sparrow is one nuts dude isn't he!!! Johnny Depp is such a terrific actor that any character he portrays you really believe he is actually the character don;t you. I love Pirates of the Caribbean and that Keith Richards cameo was genius! They are so much alike. I'd love hair like Jack Sparrow. Adios my "amiga" not "amigo" (I'm sure you understand and I don't mean a 1980s retro computer)   ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Si si este es correcto. The cameramen had to hold Keith Richards legs to stop him falling over as he was blind drunk as usual. That guy is going to live till he's 890 isn't he!!! He is medical phenonemon for the extremes of human tolerance to poisons isn;t he!!! Saludos y hasta luego! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Great news for INdian cinema - I've cleared the licensing now I'm just awaiting the image guy to wake up in the US. All images from the Bollywoodblog site have been exclusively made available for wikipedia to use without difficulty and freely in articles. We can now get all the images we ever wanted. Now I suggest you and the Indian cinema group draw up a list of actors/ directors which are missing a main image and then begin uploading them. See the licensing idea of Preity Zinta image . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 11:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

E.g Shamita Shetty etc  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 11:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou miss pa!!! If you check the bottom of the licensing you'll see the exclusive agreement with wikipedia stated on the Bollywood website. I've relocated the image to her sister Tanisha as you suggested. My only concern is that I think Shahid is against the use of images with the light logo. Unfortunately most of the images on that site are lightly marked. Perhaps we can modify them later to remove this but surely these images are better than nothing? Ideally we would get all the images like Preity without but this may not be possible. I don't think the light logo is bad enough to afffect the encyclopedic quality do you? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the award!!!! Its good to know my efforts are appreciated. Hey can I modify it to an Indian cinema barnstar?

Here is the licensing agreement:

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.bollywoodblog.com/category/All-News/Bollywoodblog-com-picture-licensing-policy/

Thanks my only concern is that Yamla is questioning it heavily  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Its cleared up with Yamla now. Um I've found a clear image for Abhishek Bachchan but it isn't a standard angle. Is this ok or does it look too weird? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When you respond feel free to start a new section at the bottom otherwise I find it hard to find!!! 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs)

I'll definately try to replace the previous one. I'm not convinced on Shahrukh Khan either. These articles are so finely written that the images need to correspond  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is most of the images of all the actors at events of which there are hundreds per actor have the watermark on them. If we can find a way of erasing the marks on them all we'd be fully sorted. I guess we all need to decide whether a watermarked image is accpetable for the encyclopedia or not. P,S congrats fo all your hard work on these articles they are mint. Its a shame that some of the other industry articles aren't up to standard  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats good but I was thinking about uploading - this is a stunning image * I have wiki friend in Thailand who is very good with altering images. He modified the John Wayne main image which originally had a huge tree and was of a pale color. I'm sure a peachy colour could great easily paint over the mark -its not that prominent is it and eventually leave us with a superb image. You could probably upload two images ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked User talk:Wisekwai to look into it. I'd imagine he could do one or two but I doubt he could do a factory sized amount. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It barely notices on Kareena Kapoor but yes explore the site as much as you can and see what is to offer regards  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've started a licensing file page at Bollywood blog images as recommended. This should give it the official consolidation once terms are added and tag codes are added. Good? Plus see Kareena Kapoor now. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PLease note Template:Cc-by-3.0-Bollywood-bg is the license now. Do not use Template:Bollywoodblog any more thanks. Just copy the Preity Zinta image page and it'll be correct thanks  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 10:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey check out my new main page = I've set this as default. Main Page of Blofeld -this is how the front page should look I think!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 18:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does look much more attractive doesn't it. I honestly think an encyclopedia should also have an A-Z index clear on the front page. I've contacted Bollywood blog again and whilst they said removing the logo would be difficult they told me to upload as many clear images as possible. They then said for you to find a list of images you want to remove the logo and then they would see what they could do. I'd suggest that you and Bollywood Dreamz find as many clear images as you can and then for people who have the logo on only make a list and I'll try to get them clear for you. Amazingly the website has even sent me images saying "Hey this actress doesn't have aphoto -here we go upload it!!!". I think they realise how much traffic wikipedia gets which may increse people going to their site  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

HI Pa. I don't know what the fuss over the rationale is? I am getting very tired of receiving images that even have a full rationale. I created the film rationale and biography rationale template and even I keep getting images. What annoys me is that because one sad editor disagrees with it he is permitted to tag it as for deletion within a week. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Pa I'll invite you to leave the list you compile at the top of my Secret launching pad. Its a note pad for my to-do list. Just give me a bell when you've done it thats all. Hey I've made some further adjustments to my main page. You could create your own personalized main page to make wikipedia a bit more fun with Indian actors or Johnny Depp or something. Saludos  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can tell the others about my secret page as you are all part of IT.

Setting your main page
Seriously I can create a main page for you with Johnny Dep no kidding -but not Jack Sparrow as this is copywrighted. All you have to do is program a default into your monobook which I can show you how to do and then copy my page but put images of Johnny Depp on. This way every time you click the main page it will come up with him on seriously -I'll do it for you as I'm taking it easy for a few days ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A present like this?? : User:Pa7/Main Page. You get the idea!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you could sort them and draw up the list officially at WikiProject Indian cinema/Image sorting then send me the list when its done cool? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also updated the Indian cinema main page with this link and mentioned the bollywood blog. Its like a ghost town this group there only seems a few of you active! - let me know later if you want to change your main page at all Adios  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No I need to show you how to set this as your actual main wikipedia page and you can modify it as you like to every time you enter wikipedia this is naturally your main official page. It automatically updates as normal anyway. PLease see User:Pa7/monobook.js first. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok now copy and paste the exact following text and save it it your monobook User:Pa7/monobook.js. Once you've saved it hold down the Ctrl (Control button) in the bottom left of your keyboard and press F5 at the top of your keyboard.

PLease copy this exactly as you see it in the box: var mpTitle = "Main Page"; var isMainPage = (document.title.substr(0, document.title.lastIndexOf(" - ")) == mpTitle) if (isMainPage) {window.location="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pa7/Main_Page";}

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New section
See Talk:Preity Zinta  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)



I hope the main page I created for you is OK with Johnny Depp. Adios  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You can call me Blofeld, Baldy, Ernst, Dr. Evil, world dominator, owner of Mr Bigglesworth, crazy mofo, Volcano man, Number 1, anything of these you like. Soy muy calvo y tengo un animal blanco  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 16:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It means I am very bald and have a white animal. I've done some organization at WikiProject Indian cinema it was a mess. I've created the notepad now and added a section for film article image requests on the actor image page we created before. I also added the nice Indian cinema icon. Now the notepad will need organization and bullet pointing concisely. Are you OK with these changes? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed with Giro who does a lot of organizational work for WP Films and he like me thinks its time we standardized the cinema groups and took the Indian cinema group as part under our wing and part WP:India. At present it seems like many of the participants are inactive and unfortunately general Indian cinema project organization is suffering as a result despite the great work of its active members on certain articles. Now a move to WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force would guarantee an increase in organization and would be closely monitored by Giro and msyelf and others who could then bat ome date in collaboration assess all Indian cinema articles and try to ensure even covergage of all. . It would create a stable framework and not alienate the group but would be working with overall film project goals of which Indian cinema is undeniably a part of. It would also be a part of the WP:India group natually. Now I need some support in this -I promise a move will strongly enhance the cinema group organization and it would still function the same. Please let me know if you agree asap thanks  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It can only bring solidarity to film and bio articles related to Indian cinema and it will create more interest in the project and encourage active members of films to check it out and try to contribute. There would soon enough be a drive to assess all articles and work at developing everything in coordination with our goals . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell me where in the article this "typical " word and that musical is mentioned- i couldn't find it. I do see how Shahid can see it as a good way to describe the many films which indeed have this plot in Bollywood but I also see how you may feel the word typical may be a litle too harsh and dismissive of the films for an encyclopedia. I would personally remove the single word typical or replace it with common as I suggested as I don't think it is for an encyclopedia to judge. Quite frankly I dont know what the problem is between you two but I certainly hope you work things out pretty soon. Hey that laugh is mmmmooooooooooaaaaaahhahahahahahahaaaaaa. Are you getting it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've stated what I think on the talk page as you asked me what I thought. Yow!! Boohooo.Sob sob. Lois Maxwell who played Mish Moneypenny died. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I know. Well she was 80. But my nan is 102 and has an 81 year old daughter!!! I hope you weren't offended by the message -i know the two of you were only in conflict over it because you want to perefect it and get it to FA. Great work on Bollywood 1970s .Well done. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 09:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They aren't strictly lists at all this is why I renamed them. An introductory paragraph would be highly appropriate. Good luck - I don't know if Shahid is working on Bollywood 1980s now but this does need a lot of work. For missing films I believe imdb has a hindi film by year guide which might be useful -there must be masses of missing notable films also. Also it would be good to create the list of missing images to upload Adios. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Images from Bollywood Blog. Its looking terrific  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but you have to make sure you categorize it like this - I had to go through some which Riana didn't cover earlier - I don;t think Shahid is editing that 80s page  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No thats perfect, If you discuss that you could go on forever. Possibly you could identify some of the most highly acclaimed films -I mean the really famous ones but only basically. It looks excellent as it is. There must still be many films missing though  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 16:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes like I have been doing for the American lists e.g American films of 1993. I started them from scratch and List of British films and all the world lists in that template. The first film I added for Britain was Dr No in 1962 and now look at it!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also proposed some new parameters to the film infbox including production designer, choreographer and costumes. These are important for Indian film in particular where there are some prominent people in these fields ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it is to make the option there. Some people in these areas of every prominent so if the paramter was available they could be included. Of course there are many unnotable people in these fields also so it wouldn't compulsory. The 70s looks cool now. KUTGW  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweety Mr Biggleworth loves it. Yes thats right most will probably be Hindi although there will be several Tamil, telugu etc. I feel these pages are of major importance for Bollywood on wikipedia. If we can map out most of the films in history red linked in these lists with the details to complete them then gradually all the articles can be started. The lists are a great way in providing a framework for Indian cinema and very useful for putting the film in its context. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well they've come a mile already from the backwards useless one page lists of titles these used to be. I hope you like the Indian film templates and the one at the side -I had to add the orange!! Wel done for finding the hindi by year I knew it would be there somewhere. Saludos!! Tus contribuciones son excelentes! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw it don't worry LOL! Would you prefer to add all the titles first and fill in the details later? or would you prefer to do several at a time with details? (I added a new article to one of your red links) If you like I can go through the 1960 s now and add the titles now ready for filling. OK? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good going. I've just added two new 1970 articles beginning with aa. I'll start at 1960 now I think with the titles. The way you do it is good. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes paste it on my page -it was an edit conflict probably  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done thanks. I split up the tables by year on the page this s why also it might have not worked  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 19:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Great news. I've learned how to digitally enhance or crop images. That site has the very latest images which can be cropped easily and modified. It also has a great number of other people other than actors. See Tushar Gandhi and Dil Dosti Etc which I've added to today. Now how many encyclopedia's would have an image of the film premiere in just three days ofter the films release? !! If you have any images you want cropped or whatever please let me know or leave them on the project image page. Basically we can now have any of the photos on that site as we can manipulate them to remove the watermark  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. Yes I am just learning how to enhance the quality of them - air brushing etc. It may take some time but a good thing. I added the titles of 1960 and 1961 yesterday I'll to 1962-1969 later. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

E.g Jiah Khan cropped, and altered from original. I've got to get used to it but its a start. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its going great! I'll add some more to the 60s later adios  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pa - as you do much work on actors feel absolutely free to put your name down for WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. It is always good to know who actively works on such articles anyway  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'm really happy with how that project is developing. I couldn't believe that project took so long to set up.! I thought the name WikiProject Film biography might be more suitable but this name seemed boring. Welcome! . Today I've been looking back over Argentine cinema which has some good films -it brings a smile to my face how much everything is developing. India too! I managed to dig out a photo of my bald head which you can now see  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah I've just finished Categoriing the lists as Category:1970s films including Bollywood. Yes the last column is ideally for film studio. film fare/ indian film awards and nominations or anything notable about content of the film such as sexual/moral differences compared to other films etc. If it is really notable about a debut then note it but as there are so many actors I don't think this is a very good idea I agree. 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)~. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs)

Hey howz it going where have you been!!?? I am thinking that it might be a good idea when they are completed to split the Bollywood films by year. What do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey all right?? I was thinking that when 1979 is complete the page may be over 60kb or whatever. I hope we can get it all on one page though - it doesn't matter really. Hey I'm looking like Blofeld today - I have on a charcoal grey type slim fit neck jumper -it makes me look like an evil world leader! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are feeling better anyway, I was sick two or three days ago - I had a dodgy chicken curry! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I been uploading a lot of images - cropping and enhancing some of them really helps -they make a big difference but because of the uniqueness of the agreement I keep getting people trying to queestion it or ruin it. Everything is going well though. LOL yes I am looking quite dr evil like today (although I'm not really bald). In fact I look a lot like Image:No 2 1969 APTSWSM.jpg (Rob Lowe) who plays Number Two in Austin Powers!!. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to do though when the lists are complete is to make a list of some of the top Bollywood actors and try to ensure each of their filmographies is in the correct order and tabled and all of the red links removed with articles. If you come across an actor who's filmography isn;t in order and has a lot of red links make a note of it in the project notebook page so we cna all aim to address it and ensure evenness. OK? 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL you;ve got the evil laugh right!! "Somebody throw me a figging bone here. I'm the boss here, I need the info. You complete me Mini Mr Bigglesworth". We call it a Belgian dip. No knawing on our kitty. Love him and stroke him. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you hear my evil laugh once. See My evil laugh. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The career section looks OK but what obviously needs more coverage is her early life and personal life and any thing else she does outside of acting. Then you can reference it as you find info. Hey you may want to use these images see Image:Ursus maritimus us fish.jpg and Image:Dolphin embryo.jpg. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Mini me's laugh is even more evil!! Evil minime ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi I'm still not feeling too great. I've kind of lost my energy and I'm finding it difficult to concentrate - I haven't been editing much this week. I think I'll get an allergy test done or something. SOmebody's stolen my mojo!. Yes Zinta will be proposed for an A tomorrow. We also found some new images for it and I added some for Shilpa too. Hope you are well. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC) I still haven't lost my evil humour though. Chuckle chuckle. Doesn't Image:Arethafranklin.jpg remind you a bit of Eddie Murphy's (Sherman's) mother in the Nutty Professor?? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did initially remove the part about her friend but as Shahid noted that she frequently mentions her in interviews si I thought it must be important in her life. About the partying - well that is just a refinement it isnt as important as the education, I don't see a major issue with it  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 21:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Yeah Eddie Murphy played the whole family and dumped [{Scary Spice]]!!. I still like the first one but I hate the sequel - its too overboard with the Klumps I think. Goldmember was funny in parts but I found it too stupid, with Nigel Powers being Austin's and Dr Evils father, minime changing sides and Dr Evil coming good leaving it to Scott. I liked the part with Fat Bastard though. Those scabs on Goldmember were just ughhhh weren't they. What a minger!!. I preferred the original 1997 film also. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 21:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Hey as Ali G would say about that Aretha Franklin image (R.E.S.P.E.C.T.) Boyakasha!! Comprende? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 21:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I loved Felicity Shagwell she looked really gorgeous. I thought the name of Dr Evils world dominating scheme The Alan Parsons Project was hilarious!! Frau Farbisina and her golf playing "friend" "Uhne Browe" was terrific. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL!. Remember Ali G and Shaggy's collaboration Me Julie. "Me Julie when I touch you with my goolie, you turn me on with your big babylons". Aiiiii! What kind of a goon walks up a boiling hot beach in Kingston, Jamaica wearing a full length sheepskin coat!!! Do you remember it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 22:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes he, Usher and P. Diddy have to have the world biggest ego's don't they. And all of them are short guys!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Anyway yes I think it is important that we get those lists done. But make sure you are feeling completely better. I don't feel like editing too much when I'm not 100% fit either. All the best. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 23:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hey, just busy for a couple of weeks, will get working on the list after that,-It's a great idea, and no I did not disappear from the Rani page, still look in, but I see that it is mostly under control so do not meddle. Catch you after a couple of weeks then. Haphar 19:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello!!
Hi, Pa7,

yes, I'm back. Thanks for the warm welcome. Man, you guys have been busy. And there is peace on the Rani article! I was so surprised! Everything is going really smoothly, isn't it? It's good to be here again. :) Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 05:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Soha ali khan .jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Soha ali khan .jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 11:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)