User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 19

Thnx
thnx for adding ref in priyank chopra article by the way ZoomTV.in is Times of India's Website. bye--KDELover (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Central Board of Secondary Education link
I goofed.

After spending hours putting together Talk:Central Board of Secondary Education/Spam and listing domains at WikiProject Spam I screwed up and left in the spammy cbse.co.in link by mistake, not the official http://www.cbse.nic.in. I am glad this error got corrected and I am sorry for the mistake. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's OK - thanks for the notice :). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

New Message
why u did not replyed my earlier question. if u cant show me exact ref / prof that wikipedia recongnise photo gallaries ( its not a Fan site) as a spam then will  revert ur edit in Preity Zinta Acticle. u may be senier editor but u cant do any thing without showing any proof or Ref. wikipedia is not ur's only, its our site we hav to do things collaborately. u cant delete my work just by telling its wikipedia rules with out showing any proof or ref. the link Spam u send me. ther was nowher said that photo galleries are considered spam as per WP:SPAM. why u ignoring me without answaring it ? -- Blogsd  Contact   —Preceding comment was added at 19:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Shahid, I needed to ask you something as I am not sure about it. About a month or two back, Kareena Kapoor performed at the Femina Miss India 2008. I was wondering if this can be added in the "Commitments" section and "In the media" section. I am pretty sure that it can be added in the latter but not sure about the former. Could you please let me know?? Thanks!! BTW, how are you doing??? You seem to be a different Shahid!! LOL... You're so much quieter!!! Where is the old Shahid?? LOL :) -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk 01:51, 13 June 2008
 * Shahid, I have another question for you. :) Do you think I should expand the "Chameli" & "Fida" paragraphs. When I say expand, I mean, including a brief synopsis about the film or her role. What do you say?? Once again, thanks for helping me!! Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk 02:08, 13 June 2008
 * Shahid, I was just joking!! LOL!! You're still the same though you have become a lot quieter; just like Geet Dhillon in JWM!! ;) Anyways, regarding the Femina thing, Kapoor appeared on the show, where she performed to a medley of her songs and crowned the winners of the contest. Do you think I can add it in the "Commitments" section?? -- Bolly wood Dreamz   Talk 01:51, 14 June 2008
 * "The same applies to Bebo, after the phenomenal performance of Geet in JWM, she receives many offers, which will have to be described on her article, so things have to be calculated in a more sensitive way, especially considering that it is on its way to become GA (inshallah! :))." - What do you mean?? I seriously didn't get your last message. Could you explain it to me?? LOL ;) -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk 20:19, 15 June 2008

Tashan (film)
Hi Shahid, I noticed that you've been reverting vandal edits by Graphme. Good work there...However, I just wanted to bring to your notice that you might want to report the user to any administrator for his/her intervention against vandalism instead of violating the three revert rule (if not already done so). Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Boy! I didn't think of that. But, I was really sad to see his talk page only with one warning. Consider using the warning templates sequentially and after the final and 4/5th warning, report him and have him blocked. That's what I usually do for such vandals. Mspraveen (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice words, dude! I was just doing what I like doing..Hope the vandal learns from the day's block and stops spamming. Btw, how's the weekend fever coming along? Mspraveen (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to know that the fever has been going well. The weekend for me was quite laidback and it was good that I had to opportunity to work on two articles dear to me - Vanaja (film) and Rang De Basanti. I guess that Vanaja can be converted into a GA soon with a good PR and RDB into an FAC with a good c/e. Do you think you can help with the c/e, time permitting? Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon looking at your interests, maybe Vanaja is of interest to you :) Mspraveen (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Shahid, it was nice to see you c/eding Vanaja (film). May I ask what seems to confuse you? I had this doubt in mind that my way of putting some aspects might confuse another reader. :) Thankfully, you've raised this up and I hope with our discussion, this could be eliminated :) Mspraveen (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Shahid, sorry for reply late on your message regarding a confusing review in Vanaja (film's article. It is a mixed review and hence, I've altered it accordingly to make more sense. I've added a little more detail in the past few days. Any further comments or any addl. thoughts you might have on the article? I'd like to thank you for putting in your side if efforts in c/e it. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Shahid...nice to see your quick reply. I agreed with Blofeld's thoughts too and I realized my folly of having the director's bio in the background section! I've changed that to make it more appear like content relevant only to the film. Furthermore, I added a little more the the production section and revamped it in the sectioning. I'm looking for sources that critique the film in more details, something that is sort of what Blofeld is saying. Sadly with Indian films not having much scope with reliable sources, leave alone those Indian reviewers who'd critique the filmmaking techniques. But let me see what I can gather in the meanwhile. I'll wait for your comments before setting it up on GAN. And No, how can I forget you!? :) You've been a good support and a nice friend while on Wikipedia. How was/is the weekend going on, btw? Where are you geographically located, if you don't mind me asking. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Shahid. How're you doing? After sprucing up the article based on Blofeld's suggestions and with your c/edits, I felt that the article was ready to be nominated. I had added a little more content with a few good sources that spoke further on the cast as well as the issues during filmmaking. I would have loved to add a section on the cinematic techniques used in the film, but I was not able to secure a good enough source to find such information. However I believe that with further strengthening of the prose, it can at least obtain an A-class if not FA. Thoughts? (whenever you are free) Presently, it has been nominated for a GA. I hope for its best. Mspraveen (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shahid. Nice to see your reply. The non-notability message appeared in my watchlist and I was wondering what was wrong. It was easy to fix it. That's no problem! Yeah, I'm quite hopeful that Vanaja with make the GA cut. I hope to have you around should any need arises. This is sort of a golden week for WP:Indian cinema. We have three GANs at the moment! :) Have a good weekend. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello friend
Hello amigo. Sorry for the delay. Me was out on a boat in the Bristol Channel earlier off Penarth. I'm burned from the wind rather than the sun!! How are you? Mmm there are both good points and bad points with those templates. We have tons of similar plates for American award winning films and actor awards even for B movies and crappy awards and to be honest I have to fully agree with you that there is far too many of them. The thing is if you have too many plates in addition to the cinema of India templates/Bollywood etc it starts to look silly. The thing is, are they really necessary when we have categories already for them? I don't mind so much the film templates but the actors one I think is not neccessary. COuld you provide an example of one of the new templates in an article? Cheers. Best regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah what I mean is an example of how the templates look in an article. Has he begun adding them to articles yet? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 16:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Personally I don't see why two templates related to the award in one article is needed. One is a successor predessesor table and the other the complete nav box of films. I wouldn't object if just the one was kept, the problem is that the standard Indian cinema and industry templates are removed and this makes it inconstent. Personally I think we should keep the succesor type box and remove the new one particularly as the template connects to the list in the main article and in the category too, so basically it is listing them four times which is completely unnecessary. I think the Indian cinema group ought to come to a consensus on it as too much clutter at the bottom of articles can not look good. I would support your concerns fully, glad you noticed. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the templates are useful for quick browsing through awards and they look fine, and it does follow a similar format with other awards, my concern is just too many templates at the bottom of articles. See what Dwaiypanc thinks. Normally I encourage such templates, but I am thinking in relation with the templates on director, Indian cinema and industry which would clutter the foot of the pages. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Yes I see what you mean he seems to be doing a lot of good work on the older movies and actors which I strongly encourage. We need as many people as possible working on the old films as much of the interest seems directed at 2000s Indian films. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Queen of Hollywood"
Please do not assume bad faith as it is against Wikipedia policies. All removals of citations from reliable sources will be reverted. B.Wind (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, re-read what I added and you'll see that they were statements of fact reported by reliable sources, not opinions from fanzines or sites (or do you believe that the BBC, CBC, The Hindu, Newsweek, and Time to be non-reliable news organizations?). Oh, by the way, the disambiguation page was meant to be a start as it had only involved three hours of Google searching for reliable sources and people dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" for a disambiguation page, and dab pages generally don't have citations (they're for the articles to which they are linked). So, naturally, I was going to miss a few people along the way as I was hoping for someone who knew significantly more about the title than someone who searched the web a mere three hours - you see, that's called assuming good faith - and you could have been more positive by bothering to check the sources and their wording before going further. Now, please re-read what I had contributed and their citations and see if I had not stated cited objective facts - if they're incomplete, my apologies, but it also sounds that you've a bit a bit of bias, as well, with the editorial comments and decision. I can wait until deletion review regarding the dab page... unless you wish to assume good faith and write an appropriate article for Queen of Bollywood instead. Of course it should be sourced.

Oh, 3RR applies to you, too. B.Wind (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Caught both of your posts as I was trying to reply. Let's just say that we both need our minds widened before moving forward... OK? Then check to see what was actually written and presented as fact as opposed to opinion. Have a nice day... or evening, depending upon where you are reading this right now. B.Wind (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

One last post before ending 24 hours of work... Almost every popular actress has been called this way. Do you have a citation for that? Cheers. B.Wind (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi Shahid can i ask u a question, i did not understand why i cant use flagicon in Priyanka Chopra article. Can u plz Kindly explain to me in brief. Plz dont just send me  few hyperlinks where i hav to read Long Long term of Wikipedia Policies and  i may not find exact about flagicon portion. i request u plz explain me in brief, why i cant use flagicon in Priyanka Chopra article. thnx in advance :) bye --  Blogsd   Talk  01:10am IST 15 June 2008    —Preceding comment was added at 19:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * thnx for the quick reply


 * i will not use any flagicon on birthdate as per wikipedia rules


 * "Flag images, especially flag icons in biographical infoboxes, should not be used to indicate birth or death places, as this may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality". i totally agree with that.


 * by the way ther is nothing to be shocked about of new rules. they says instate using flagicon in birth or death day  use it on tables or lists that provided citizenship, nationality etc info.
 * "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand"
 * i will use flagicon on citizenship, nationality  not  in the date of birth or  date of death etc (as per rules).
 * thnx for educating me :) bye

--  Blogsd  Contact   —Preceding comment was added at 21:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Bollywood
Your're kidding right? Shahid don't let that get you down, any decent encyclopedian can see that such a title has no legitimacy and is just a fantasy. Such amateurs won't get away with trying to turn wikipedia into a fansite, and many beginners haven;t a clue of what an encyclopedia is about. After all you;ve been through thats the last thing that should upset you! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 21:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC) I've replied on his talk page. I have absolutely no problem with him writing articles on this site, we need as many contributors to Bollywood as possible, so long as fan cruft is exempt and they are written formally as an encyclopedia article should be. A dab page is highly problematic when it isn't based on fact, it is original research at best and likely to create all sorts of actresses listed their based on POV. I shouldn't worry too much about that page but I should be extra cautious to ensure that B.Wind writes neutrally elsewhere. I'm not aware if where he has worked wikipedia but I hope he would sincerely appreciate writing form a neutrla viewpoint as any good editor should. Regards  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 09:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest to both of you that WP:NPA applies to all Wikipedians, and that I furthermore suggest that you do your research before making unfounded statements about others. I have no intention in making Wikipedia into a fansite, as any of my 7500+ previous edits would indicate. I would rather we work together to improve Wikipedia, rather than cast aspersions. Please look beyond the WikiProject and you'll see a much larger world in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just hit 160k! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know its editing Africa and Asia is what does it, the content missing or that needs fixing is vast and it requires thousands of edits even to make things even borderline acceptable. 8/10 of those edits have been at counteracting systematic bias abd trying to fill in poorly devleoped areas of high potential. I expanded Inhambane earlier which was a one liner without an infobox. I;ve DYK proposed it. I also started Agriculture in Laos and Agriculture in Mauritania the other day- but note the text in those two is mostly copied as it is public domain -this is part of WP:Library of Congress to get important articles on countries onto wikipedia. I would rather write the articles myself rather than a pasting job though -hopefully when I have time i can compile some other sources and write those articles to a high standard and make them my own and add tons of references, the important thing is that we now have that text on wikipedia but there are still thousand sof missing case studies from the Library of Congress to copy onto here. Someday wikipedia will have the articles content started and I can begin solely concnetrating on writing full articles rather than power tooling!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh it will be huge I have no doubt. My only concern is that the value of the site will inevitably increase immensely and then one day Jimbo may sell to Microsoft or some other web glutton and years of hard work will have been added for corporate gain. I sincerely hope it stays "free". Quality should certainly have improved consiserably in 10 years,By that time we should have around 10 million articles too. I guarantee people will still be adding new content 10 years from now. Some day I'm certain we'll have some sort of 3D technology and it will become increasingly virtual, I'm talking about places or buildings where you can explore the landscape of places thousands of miles away on a PC and 3d maps etc. I wonder of we will have an FA on Amitabh by then? Anyway the main task is to develop our stubs to GA class articles. That should be the primary goal. Only 3000 GAs is diabolical with 2.4 million articles. We should be aiming for 100,000 at the very least. The growth of GAs and FAs is pretty curbed by the nature of the whole process unfortunately. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so long as we don't get more fan crufters which is more than likely. Potentially how many Indians could be contributing? LOL of course I know Kate Bush  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 17:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Definately take it to afd. I thought it was deleted? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 10:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Just copy the previous discussion to afd. I doubt it will be kept. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 10:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I think you should stay cool! Your particularly venomous attacks on User:B.Wind appear to be unwarranted, as IMHO he doesn't seem to have done much against either the spirit or letter of WP policies. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya
Hello Shshshsh! I created the article Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya. Do we have people who are KRAZZY about Bollywood on Wikipedia? This is my first Hindi-movie related article. I want to contribute to more Hindi-movie related articles. I need your help. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 09:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

re: striking comment
First, please remember that we are not voting in deletion discussions. They are discussions aimed at reaching rough consensus on the ultimate fate of an article. That said, deletion discussions are often quite long and complicated. Wikipedians have developed several norms and traditions in an attempt to help keep the discussions organized. One is that all comments must be signed. This allows the closer to review the commentor's contribution history for evidence of sockpuppetry. Another is that comments are organized as bulleted entries and responses as sub-bullets. This aids the closer in determining which are new opinions and which are responses to a prior comment.

Third (and this is the relevant one for us), you only get to vote once. That sounds a little silly since I just said that we're not voting at all but the point is that the closer can have a very difficult job determining what the rough consensus is at the end of the discussion period. In long discussions, it is all too easy to lose track of whose opinion you've already considered and who is new to the discussion. When users who are new to the process make multiple comments using the bulleted, bolded "keep" or "delete" format, it increases the likelihood that the closer will misread or misattribute a comment.

More than that, it does give the impression to other readers of the discussion that you're trying to have your opinion counted twice. Yes, we have had people who thought that they could vote twice. And, yes, we've had cases where it's created a lot of confusion and taken many days and many discussions to sort out. When it appears to be a simple mistake (as yours appeared to me), it is customary to strike out the confusing part (though not any commentary that went with the opinion) as an aid to the closer. This is generally considered less adversarial than a formal "note to the closer". It is not an attempt to stifle the new user's opinion or to suppress new evidence that could help the community reach consensus. It is purely an administrative notation to show that the user has already commented above.

I hope that clears things up. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit reluctant to be the one to remove your comment. That could be mistaken for a bad-faith edit by the closer if he/she is working carefully through the log of the discussion page.  (It's unlikely but that discussion is already showing more heat than I would have expected.)  However, if you remove your own comment, you have my permission to simultaneously remove my reply from the visible record.  When you do, you might want to mention in the edit summary that the change is made with both our agreements and documented here on your Talk page.  Thanks for your understanding.  Rossami (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image
I know it does my head in. I uploaded a few Bollywood film poster with all the correct details and still the bot keeps tagging them. I remove them and then it goes and tags it again. What annoys me about these bots is that the owners are plain irresponsible for running them. I try to contact the owners of bots like this and Betacommand bot and they never reply, its almost as if they like unleashing a bot and making people suffer!! Hey, new article today Minkébé National Park.

Thanks, I just filled out some red links too. CARPE could be a branch of SPECTRE do you think? The reason why there is a decent amount of info available on places like this is because these groups care about the world we live in. Try finding much info on anything else for countries like Gabon and you'll be stuck. If people cared more about these places all over, then we would have a lot more info on the web on cities and towns etc and wikipedia would eventually be a lot more resourceful.

LOL on the front page is Banknote Museum which I stubbed a few weeks back remember? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 14:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 13:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't write it, I only stubbed it. The writer should have found more sources. Meanwhile I have just added some images to John Carters new article Shrine of Hazrat Ali. Look stunning doesn't it. That article could probably be expanded considerably too. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 15:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Shahid are you sure the others will approve? Unfortunately many of the most active Indian cimema editors aren;t around much  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 20:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Film templates
There's a discussion on the Film Project talk page about the templates in question, which generally seems to indicate that they're not really well supported. I don't think that they'll necessarily qualify for deletion, but I am getting the impression they're not likely to be used very much. John Carter (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, sorry you've lost me on that one. Don't connect to any film articles?? The Bollywood templates connects to every year in Bollywood film which intends to list every notable Bollywood film produced, basically you are one click away from accessing the entire content of Bollywood film in that nav box. It just isn't feasible to list film titles themsevles in nav boxes particularly as there are so many films -this is what categories and lists are for. Aside from this if you feel like venturing across INdian cinema the CInema of India template not only connect to an A-Z category of Hindi film but connects to every other category there is on an Indian film whether it is Telugu, Malayalam etc. As if that wasn't enough it also connects to all the actor and cinema people categories. What you've just said is completely the opposite to how the templates function. They connect directly to films in abundance!!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 11:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically you're proposing that you delete all of the templates from all of the film articles so far and just have them in only what appears in the template? Did you not get that they are intended for navigation as they are? Do you think I would have created templates for no reason? E.g after reading a film article you are presented whith the choice to visit the years in Bollywood film and browse through the films? Removing the templates from all of the film articles immediately reduces accessibility to pages related to Indian cinema. Your're the last person I would have expected to propose deleting them. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 11:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine Shahid just seems a little out of the blue thats all. I wouldn't have any objections if you just removed the Cinema of India templates only. Often they do appear too generic in generla film and actor articles I agree, in that after reading a Bollywood film you suddenly have the Marathi actor category etc. They were originally intended to macimise naivgation and to try to "connect Indian cinema together". Note that if we keep the CInemaofIndia templates in the categories instead, then when you click a category after every article you immediately have it connected in the category anyway so it would seme illogical to have it in the articles also particularly when they are quite diverse. I would not approve however of removing the Bollywood templates from the Bollywood film articles as they serve a direct function to connect to the "sum of Hindi cinema". What I would suggest is that you customize the individual cinema templates to incdude Hindi film directors etc and save having to have two templates. This would make the focus more on the individual industries of Indian cinema and then just have it connected across the industries in the categories? Does this sound better? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 11:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, thats what I just said LOL isn't it? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 11:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I had actually considered changing it when I created the Bollywood template a while back. As long as we keep the Cinema of India template in the categories and in the core articles it will connect them together. Template:CinemaoftheUSalso was too generic to put in all the American film and actor articles. This is why this template is only used in categories and core articles and we use year templates in the film articles. I suggest we do the same with Indian film as long as you don't remove those year specific links!! Don't remove them from the categories though as they are intended to connect it together "behind the mainspace". So now if there is a Bollywood template and a film director template in one article this will look managable. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 12:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

E.g Category:Indian films etc keep the Cinema of Indian template in the main categories like that ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 12:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

indian cinema template removal
Hi, where was this discussed and who agreed? I do not see any topic under WP:India project page on this? --GDibyendu (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But, they contain useful 'see also' links. I think this should have been discussed in Indian cinema task force page before removal. You can still initiate a discussion and see whether people are in consensus with you. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking about B type. Creator did not add this template to all pages where it existed (I can show counterexamples). And just because I created something in WP does not mean if I agree, then that's it. There is a workgroup on indian cinema, and you should have discussed it there. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then why did you remove it from New Theatres? It was a major film studio! I still think it should be discussed in Indian cinema task force page. At least you mention why you have removed the template from all these pages. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Shahid, you've completely misinterpreted my message. What I was saying is that many of the active editors for Bollywood articles are simply not around, so in making an "official project discussion" they wouldn't be here to offer their views on removing the templates anyway. I still think you should let the active editors such as Dwaiypanc, MsPraveen, Bollywooddreamz etc know that they are to only be used for core articles and categories evne if they mostly work on the other industries, but I have no idea why you thought I had changed my mind or was trying to dramatise it. It is a simple task that should be done as simply (and with as little fuss) as possible. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 21:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC) No te preoccupe amigo. No es importante. Tu progreso a hoy es muy rápido! Quiero escaladar los montañas del mundo! Saludos. El verano en Gales es bastante frio, en este momento. Hace dos semanas la temperatura fue bastante caliente pero no ahora!! El Wimbledon. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Muy bueno amigo. Quiesiera aprender hablar español, francais y italiano con fluidez. Traducir los articulos de los otros wikis! Hasta luego  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I said I want to climb the mountains of the world! Then I said the summer in Wales is quite cold at the moment but two weeks ago it was quite hot! Then I was about the start talking about Wimbledon but I didn't lol. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow check out Image:Mardin.jpg I just uploaded in full px. What a view! It is an image from charles and fred. It seems they are living in Turkey at present, an unhealthy number of images of gay Turks though, they seem to take images of blokes from aged 8 to 88 and don't discriminate! They can take some great scenic pictures though. Its a shame the commons admins aren't efficient otherwise I would have made tens of other agreements by now. If I had the ability to OTRS ticket them I could sort it out quickly and wiki would eventually be several thousand images better off. I'm still waiting for Riana to restore my dleeted flickr images from months ago, I caught a new page ffrom her on patrol, I left her a message two minute slater and she again didn't respond. I don't know what's happened to her, the decent thing would be for her to do would be to leave me a quick message. She has returned several times. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've sent you a lovely email  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 21:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I've replied. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Yeah baby! Have a look at my new article Coffee production in Costa Rica. I could probably start a series on world coffee production. I could probably also create a series on the costa rican economy and start similar articles on banana and tea production. There are a ridiculous number of potential "encyclopedic" encyclopedia articles missing. All those articles that could be written on tea production in Assam state, coffee production in Guatemala or Kenya, Banana production in Panama etc. Imagine all the other case studies that could be written about various industries form every country LOL. And thats not even mentioning the lack lustre of most of the national economy articles and other core articles for these countries are on here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 13:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read it? I've also had a go at Kareena this evening ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan
How is a link to the man's own blog, which he is updating every day, a "spam"?

In biographical articles, it is standard to link to the subject's personal website if they have one. Mporter (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What??
LOL, I missed you too!! ;). I am feeling so lonely and bored these days!! It's great to hear from you again!! Everyday, my routine consists of going to work and coming back home. Looking through my edit history, you can tell that I don't edit as much as I used to. I am just so tired these days from work!! Good thing.. you saved the KI article. Even though if you didn't, I would ask an admin to restore it. BTW, did you save the article right before it was deleted?? -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk 20:47, 22 June 2008
 * I know!! If you have been editing at an article for quite a while and are still the only one doing so, you don't seem to find much mistakes. However, when others look at it, they are able to make the article better!! That is why I am asking as much people as I can to take a look at the article before a GAN is started!! Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk 21:20, 22 June 2008
 * Hey Shahid, if you have time later on today, could you please take a look through Kapoor's article?? Blofeld & User:Epbr123 have done some copyediting and I plan to go through the article myself right now or later on today after I get back from work. I hope I am not bothering you!! Thanks in advance!! BTW, there is good news. Thanks to the help of Blofeld, an administrator was able to relocate the KI article, which will be re-created soon. Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk 01:55, 23 June 2008
 * Shahid, I was never eager to take it to a peer review!! I am completely trusting you and Blofeld on this as you guys are more experienced than I am. BTW, the concerns that you outlined, I can clearly see them!! The article is getting really long now and from what I see, every film of hers is mentioned!! Like you said, Blofeld has been working really hard on the article and I can't thank him enough. I don't want to begin editing while he is working on the article. He is a very experienced editor like you and I completely trust him!! Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz  Talk 16:09, 24 June 2008

Queen of Bollywood
Hey Blnguyen!

One user,, created a very POV and misleading page -- Queen of Bollywood... At the beginning, it was tagged for speedy deletion, deleted, but later restored by an admin who thought the process was incorrect.

I took it to AfD here, and B.Wind obviously voted to keep the page. Now I see another vote by some anon,, who votes to keep it. Gping through his edits, I'm almost sure it is the same guy. Could you please check that? Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No registered use overlaps with that IP. But the article is obviously going to be deleted anyway. So take it easy.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you really think so? There are some editors who voted to keep. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  07:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It ought to be deleted.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Blnguyen!

I need your help. I turned to the Queen of Bollywood article, and was shocked to see that some editors had been trying to create false notability for this random phrase. So I added tags and removed their POV, but I was reverted twice.

First of all, they wrote that this is a recent Zee Cine Award named QOB. Actually, Shahrukh Khan's wife, Gauri Khan, was awareded this award, but it has nothing to do with the occasional phrase used by journalists. The name of the award is Zee Cine Award for Queen of Bollywood, which can be created, and not just QOB. In doing so, they are trying to create false notability using unrelated factors.

They also added unreferenced and OR text, "However, the terms 'queen of Bollywood' or 'Bollywood queen' have been generically applied to many popular Bollywood actresses and singers." - POV, OR, unsourced. By writing this (and calling it a term, which it is not.), they are trying to compose a definition. We are not here to conclude things.

I don't know if it will be deleted eventually, but I just can't stand their way of making up stories and creating non-existing terms in such a way. Also, their way of reverting my edits calling it vandalism, surprised me. This was the first time someone called my edits vandalism. This editor also left a very misleading note to the closing admin on the AfD. I can't believe I'm fighting for something so clear, and that such an "article" will be kept after all.

Was it not right of me to add the tags? And what does that mean? Is there nothing else to do to remove such an unencyclopedic entry from this apparent encyckpedia? Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sometimes you shouldn't argue too much because it's pointless and just one guy being irrational. You need to recognise when there is no threat posed by a guy engaging in rubbish arguments, otherwise you'll lose too much filibustering and end up time-wasting. There was never any chance of that being kept by a sensible admin, even if someone got all their buddies to win the numerical vote despite giving nonsense reasons, the admin will usually delete it even if it is 50-50. And when some article gets kept against usual Wikipedia trends, going to WP:DRV is the trick since the admins there are less likely to count silly votes and are more likely to delete rubbish containing personal constructions and analysis. Definite OR.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When an article is sent to AFD, it is put under the date that it started on the main AfD page. Brewcrewer went and re-transposed the article on yesterday's set to get more opinions, presumably with the intent of getting some keep momentum.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry it has been deleted!! It should never have been brought back but I guess some people can be lenient  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 10:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I didn't bother answering them again was because as I said any decent admin would delete it and like BNguyen I knew it wouldn't be kept. I appreciate that they did try to improve it and find "references" but that wasn't the problem, it was just the title itself so whatever they did it would still not be valid. I failed to see how such a page could be even remotely encyclopedic anyway. Your;re reaction just showed that you care a great deal about the quality and neutrality of wikipedia which is certainly not something you should feel ashamed of, if only more editors removed unencyclopedic fancruft from wiki. Best  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 10:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe the article on Anders Celsius is still a stub!! Isn't he one of the core scientists? I'll have to see about that  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 11:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I;ve begun expanding it compiling sources and rewriting, I'll reference it and process it when I've finished intergrating sources into the most detailed article I can out together. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 11:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what some people do on wikipedia but some of the really important encyclopedia articles in a traditional sense are very poor indeed. Some I come across are really good, the thing about wikipedia it will amaze you that articles on some people or places are so developed, then it will shock you the next that such a core article is utter rubbish!! Then you get a full list of Baseball Major League players and List of Pokemon chaarcters which are "beautifully referenced". Perhaps my stubbing days should be over and I should start writing the articles which I always intended to do! It really is more important that we at least have some adequate core articles. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 11:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done for now, short but sweet. I'm afraid he was rather overshadowed by Carl Linneaus who reversed it and hence gets a fuller article. I'd need books to take it to a GA  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 12:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, now is there a Bollywood film we can try to develop? Can Sholay be developed without books? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 13:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I just checked out Sholay, I wouldn't know where to start... I did some work on KANK a while ago, it has too many images though. As it was such a blockbuster we may be able to wrtie a GA on it. It would just be a good thing to have a Bollywood film up to GA level. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean Master Chief (Halo) a featured article  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 15:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shahid go ahead and edit Kareena I've done pretty much all I want to do intially to flesh out some sections to balance it and fill in some background details. Go ahead. If there are any additions I added last night, Yuva should probably be taken out as as I researched it it seemed very much centred around the 3 politicians not her!! etc. feel free to point them out. If certain films are not notable like this I;d suggest just mentioning the name of the film rather than nothing at all  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've finished for now. I've still got that whole log of french communes to sort out which I'll be doing tonight. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 18:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)