User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 30

Orphaned non-free image (File:Mujrim.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Mujrim.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan
Hi! Just a friendly reminder that you've performed three reversions in the Amitabh Bachchan article in just eight hours (here, here and here). Please note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. I've told User:Information-Line to start a discussion on the article's talk page about the reliability of the source that you've been questioning. I suggest you discuss the matter with the editor on the talk page, instead of just reverting the edits. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello! Himalayan Explorer   12:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just got tired of people bad mouthing me and saying I have a negative effect on wikipedia and do "absolutely nothing to improve the site" and am "far worse than any troll on wikipedia in terms of damage I've caused it". If Blofeld the stub creator no longer creates stubs and is no longer about, I think people will see things differently. Either way I wanted to this for ages and concentrate on quality, so at the end of the day it is what I feel happiest with... What would hurt my feelings is if I had continued to put in months of hard work expanding wikipedia as Blofeld and still have people say nasty things about my user name.I'm still here! just a different name and focus. Hope you are well! Himalayan   16:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can change my style but however much I don't create stubs any more and concentrate on quality specfically Blofeld (for those who only ever saw him on NPP and ANI) will always be remembered for blasting thousands of new stubs into the system. The fact that lots of people thought I never did anything else was evidence of this. I really have created tons of good articles, far more than they, because of limited time to do everything myself that's why I created stubs. In a few years people will see that a high number of my stubs were much needed to expand the site in the long term, I've seen thousands of my stub articles expanded already into good articles.. Himalayan Explorer  17:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you like Katie Melua? Himalayan Explorer 12:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still Blofeld! But I just happen to be in disguise and in a Himalayan retreat.... Himalayan Explorer 12:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See what I mean about the Kareena Kapoor article? It was featured level in my view when I proposed it, the concerns against were ridiculous. Most people can see it is a good article. Even Karanacs one of the FA reviewers said it was featured quality. It was basically mowed down because of "reliable sources" and supposed misinterpretations... You can take it to FAC again, would be interesting to see what happens (again), I think Bollywood articles get a very tough time at FAC. Himalayan Explorer 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re
Buddy... how come you didn't respond to my last message? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 13:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what happened to the Zee Cine Awards this year though I think they will probably continue giving out the awards the following year. Stardust Awards are intended mainly to recognize new talent but since they also give out awards to existing actors, I think it is safe enough to include it along with the other awards.
 * Unfortunately, I haven't seen Kaminey yet though I hope I will be able to watch it this weekend. As for who is going to win the "Best Actors" awards, it is too early to comment. There are still quite a lot of films expected to release in the coming months. However, if I had to pick one, I think Shahid for Kaminey is a very strong contender (based on the reviews I have read about his performance). This year, none of the actresses have delivered a good performance. Looking forward to see a lot of films in the coming months. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 16:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not upset! Why would you say that?? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slow and steady wins the race!!! :D --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Shahid... I am kinda confused about something. User:Legolas2186 indicates that the "other work" and "in the media" sections on Kapoor's article should be merged with her career section and not kept separately. Do you think that it is a wise idea or should we leave it separately?? What do you say?? I am really confused!! :S --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 16:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I agree with too though I think that his idea about merging the persona life with her career is definitely not a bad idea. Upon reading, the new version, I though that it did flow well with the article. All we need to do is tone it up a bit. What is your view about merging the personal life with her career?? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RE Zinda
The rule is inappropriately cited, as the comparisons was made in the context of plagiarism claims. If you noticed, it was already under the "Accusations of plagiarism" subheading, which was already on the page since a while back but removed without proper reason given. AS for a reference for each point made, I could actually just reference the film since its whats clearly shown on screen, though thats a bit redundant given that its already on the film page..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
Hi Shahid. I don't believe we have met before. Well I came to know of your work on the Zinta article while being asked to help on Kareena Kapoor by BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ. Wonderful article there that you have developed and kudos to you on bringing it to FA. I have a teensy bit of concern. This is regarding the personal life and other appearances sections. We, at WP:BIO are trying to merge notable facts regarding the actor/singer/person's relationships into the main part of her bio. Reason being, personal life sections always become hotbed for gossips and fancrufts. Not everything is notable and any relationship that Zinta should have and notable, is a part of her being an actress and a part of her main bio. I just changed the format for Kareena Kapoor. Check it out here. Will you be willing to step up to the beat and merge it? Just asking. :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the wonderful reply. I understand your point of view. However my main concern regarding such sections has always been the amount of undue anchorage given to every relationship or flings that the person has. Can every relationship possibly be notable? I don't think so. Hence after a subsequent time this section becomes an addition point for gossips and rumours also. For someone like Kareena, the relationships she has are mainly with actors, ie someone within her community and field of work. Hence I believe that will come as a part of her biography which deals mainly with career and relations which has come to her as part of it. They, I believe, are inseparable. I also realised that in case of Zinta or Jolie, my proposal wouldnot work, since her relation with Ness is something totally discreet and doesnot fall within the main biography. Also Jolie's relations with Pitt and adoptions and hunaitarian work are separately segregatated from her main career. Hence the format I presented for Kapoor Madonna and Janet Jackson will also not work here. However, may I request you to tweak it with the format I presented for Kapoor at my sandbox? Just a request:) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. He was the one who requested for my comments regarding the article. After I proposed the merging of personal life, he was interested alongwith User:Classicfilms. Hence I prepared the draft in my sandbox. Let's see how he chooses to incorporate my comments from the draft and how it progresses in FA (which I feel has become too much of monopoly). Hope he doesnot get discouraged there as a lot of snarky comments are given by those people there. I'm sure you must have gone through hell while promoting Zinta. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 12:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I faced this user while promoting "4 Minutes". Just because he opposed, the closing editor gave bullshit argument that not enough vote etc and failed it. Even I donot understand why the hell is he and some of them so sarcastic. They are plain de-motivating people from going to FA. Editors are well-satisfied with GA nowadays. Coming to point, have you ever promoted any movie articles to GA? I was trying to promote Raaz - The Mystery Continues to GA but it failed. That's why I moved to all the music related articles. But since I have grasped music GA's now, I wanted to work on this one again. Any pointers? :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 12:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Is this appropriate"??
I noticed you removed my addition of IndicText on Amitabh Bachchan. The article does contain Indic Text (in his Hindi name), so it probably should contain that template :\ GSMR (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and users on operating systems (like windows 9x) or web browsers (like the firefox that ships with slackware) that do not render indic text correctly need that warning. GSMR (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Special rendering additions are required for operating systems and browsers that do not have inherent support for the viewing for Indic text, and there are people who browse Wikipedia and have such operating systems and browsers. See WP:COMPLEX. That warning should appear on every page that has an Indic script in it, and Amitabh Bachchan is one such page. GSMR (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the template. It's not in any way controversial to add a notification for readers that the article contains uncommon fonts. I don't see why it was removed in the first place. Jafeluv (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

IndicText template
Hi Shshshsh. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you hadn't removed the template but moved it to the bottom. However, according to the documentation, the template should be placed at the beginning. Could you move it back, please? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think it definitely should be included, to inform readers who might not be aware why certain fonts are not displaying correctly. Placed at the bottom, though, the template loses much of its usefulness because a reader only sees it after scrolling down the article. How about including a smaller variant of the template, without the image? The syntax would be . Is that better? Also, It could be placed under the infobox if that looks less distracting in your opinion. What do you think? Jafeluv (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked a few FA's that contain Indic text, and it looks that you're right. Many don't use the template at all, and when it's used, it's sometimes used at the beginning (examples: Adi Shankara, Flag of India), and sometimes at the end (examples: Darjeeling, Delhi). So I guess it's all good. Take care, Jafeluv (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
LOL, I was the last one who sent a message! I thought you didn't like my new account!! Hehe, I've been extremely busy, I really have!! How are you amigo? Can't believe it is September already.....

Nope, not interested in adminship, I am supposed to be a humble monk in the Himalayas! In fact with my new account I hope to attract much less wiki drama and to avoid people hating me because I happened to create stubs in addition to my content work on here... Anyway you said about liking me writing articles, well this is what I do now! Check out User:Himalayan Explorer/DYK. Dion Archaeological Museum looks cool. This is how all of the stubs that Blofeld created should be looking now, not my fault nobody was interested... Himalayan  14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is a lot of my time under my old account was actually geared to improving standards and making articles consistent and I did create a high number of actually good articles, even good useful referenced stubs. Because I happened to also create a lot of short stubs because I only have limited time to get a set amount of articles onto here, I thought it was reasonable to share the workload. Unfortunately a lot of people completely forgot about my other edits and my efforts to start wiki projects on here and thought I was this dreadful threat to the project, a negative presence on the site and should be blocked indefinately because of the short stubs. Well I started plenty of stubs like Xinjiang Medical University and they were expanded... Anyway I'm a big boy, I wouldn't have changed my account and started afresh if I didn't think they had a point or didn't agree with them in part about the time it will take for editors to expand the short stubs, where we differ is that I think a good stub on a notable topic (rather than sub stub) is a progression whereas they see it as a burden. Sometimes I focused a little too much on the long term coverage on here rather than really looking at how inadequate some of the stubs I created were, but that was only because I was trying to tackle huge banks of missing articles which we should have.... The reality is, is that in the present state some 90% of our articles are far below a good standard and are eother unreferenced, stubs, or contian POV other issues. The task needed to improve quality is tremendous but at the same time we are also missing thousands of notable articles. If I do create any new articles, which I obviously will from time to time, they will be more fleshed out stubs or start class articles to avoid causing wiki drama and giving myself a bad name. Himalayan   18:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Frustrating thing about Bollywood films is the distinct lack of credible sources to write them. I'd say at least 90% of all Category:Indian films are lacking credible sources online, especially on production making it difficult to write anything of reall ygood quality. When books can be obtained we see quality like those S.Ray Bengali films... Himalayan   18:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes I know, I was talking about real production and encyclopedic information in bulk about behind the scenes things, other than gossip on blogs. For instance I wanted to develop KANK to a GA but couldn't find anything solid to write about production and script in the way you could as something like Fight Club (film). For instance, if I wanted to expand Sholay into a GA and find lots of quality credible sources which have alot of information about production and script etc, can you think of many sites online? My ideal would be having production information in the articles on any Indian film like Fight Club. At least major Bollywood films like Sholay etc having such info, you see... Himalayan  18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Howz dat. Chopin is my favourite, cool to see a "Haitian black Chopin". Himalayan   20:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Kumar Sanu
Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. Unless the editor in question is a sock of an indefinitely blocked or banned editor, then this newly registered account cannot be a sockpuppet account per se. Since I know next to nothing about Bollywood content (well, other than watching Dhoom 2 earlier this summer), I probably am not the best reference for this dispute. However, I would recommend engaging the editor on his or her talk page as they may not be aware that we operate via consensus and within the bounds of Wikipedia's core content policies WP:VER, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Good luck, — Kralizec! (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

National Film Award
hello,

I hope you are reverting changes by agreeing to the facts. Please read the following.

FYI.Best awarded Film Pulijanmam is released in year 2006 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1102308/). Not 2007. No award has been given to 2007 films yet.

Award is declared on the year 2008. Pls read following sentence in the given URL(http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008061159891100.htm&date=2008/06/11/&prd=th& ).Date:11/06/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/06/11/stories/2008061159891100.htm "Do you agree with this? Now couple of points to make you clear. 1. Award declared on the year 2008. 2. Film pulijanmam is released in the year 2006.Being these are the facts, where does the year 2007 comes? It should be either 2008/2006. I hope you got it. Many people are unaware that 2006 film awards are given in the year 2008.In 2007 no award had been declared becaue of sue. Let me know if you have discrepancies. I am reverting your changes

-thanks vijesh --Vijesh (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Shilpa Shetty
Hey. Can you discuss your reversions on the Talk:Shilpa Shetty page? It seems to me that the last source that was given by the anon IP, the metro.co.uk article, is an reliable source. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re
Hey buddy... I am doing fine!! I am just upset that I won't be able to come on Wikipedia as often as I do now as University will resume once again for me from Sept 9th onwards. :( Anyways, how are you doing these days?? (P.S. Great job on the Filmfare Award pages!!) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nahiin dost... I still haven't watched it yet!! I have just been really busy this past month :( BTW have you seen this yet?? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Zinta mentioned in one of her recent interviews that she doesn't just appear in an item number but she also plays an important role in the film. This means that apart from the song, there will also be a possibility of seeing the two ladies act together. :D I am really looking forward to seeing the two of them together on screen after a very long time. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

hello shahid
this film is released in the year 2006 NOT 2007. Please read by earlier mail again. -thanks vijesh --Vijesh (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly does 2007 represent? released year/award given year? And again todays award is given for 2007 film and given this year. so why do we give 2008 as kancheevaram? We should not give wrong information to readers. Thats what I meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijeshchandran (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

dear shahid

"If a film was released in 2000, and the award was given in 2002, the year still should be 2001 - it's the standard" what standard Shahid. Forget about standards. Standards are not meant for giving wrong info. If someone wants to know the year in which this award is given/the year in which this film released, they are mislead. 2008 is nowhere related to kanchivaram. Its released in 2007 and award is declared in 2009. All this happened because of court issues. Just for the sake of uniform year in table, we should not give wrong info to readers. Many people think wiki is last word of knowledge. So please tell me if you are agreeing. If not I would like to know the exact reason for non-agreement. -thanks vijesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijeshchandran (talk • contribs) 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Ever seen Intolerable Cruelty? My god, that is definately the best I've ever seen Catherine Zeta look as she always looks stunning. Her eyes look amazing in that film. She looked like a dream!! Himalayan   17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Zeta and Clooney are the nearest things to "classic" Golden age Hollywood actors in Hollywood today. They both have that kind of elegance you rarely see nowadays. Himalayan   17:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes she reminds me a bit of Shania. Other times, not so much. She's darker than Shania but occasionally they look a lot alike. Himalayan   17:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Turn Mile" the song. Is that a new release? Hey see what I mean compare this to this. Definately a resemblance, it seems they have exactly the same shape face and build, Catherine just has a darker tone.. Himalayan   17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Zinta always looks good. Is she still single since her split with Wess? Himalayan   21:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. And lot's of people thought I do "absolutely nothing to improve the content of wikipedia".... Its gone from 16kb to 82kb and counting! Himalayan  21:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There was me thinking that an Indian century might have been something related to cricket....BTW if it is going to be anybody's century it is going to be China's. Fastwoard hundred years to 2109 and I guarantee China will be in a different position in the world than it is today, US look out... Himalayan   15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Megan Fox has definately had cosmetic surgery to look like Angelina Jolie. If you've seen how she used to look to how she looks now. She used to look quite sweet and innocent, now she looks wickedly hot in an Angelina type of way. I thought she looked hot before now she looks scarily like Angelina did in the Tomb Raider days. I think she's hot, but she is way to up her own arse and self-obsessed and probably quite a nasty person, much more than even Jolie.

Jolie's much hotter I think because she is genuinely an intellgient person and good actress, Fox has always been a wannabe and has only got where she has because of her looks. Plus Jolie actually does care about other people around the world and doesn't focus on her own looks ALL the time like Fox does. Himalayan  14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah seems I was right about Fox being a stuck-up beeatch. Check out this. Obviously the director doesn't want to admit too much because they are only using her to win audiences and earn money! Himalayan   16:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

शाहिद नमस्ते. आप कैसे हैं? प्रीति जिंटा का सबसे अच्छा और सबसे सुंदर अभिनेत्री भारत के सभी में है! Himalayan   20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Thank you friend. I hope you learn Hindi fast so you can find a job in India" LOL, I could probably learn any Latin based language, even African languages but admittedly I am clueless when it comes to most Asian writing systems like Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, Hindi, Pashtun, Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, Thai etc. I just don't get it! The worst in my view is Chinese and Japanese everyletter looks exactly the same, a square box. I doubt I'll ever be able to learn an Asian language, it doesn't make sense to me LOL. Like Persian and Arabic are backwards, it confuses me ! Himalayan   10:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out this on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-Qx_qsAla0 Bad ass 80s rock. Love it. Especially from 2.16 onwards and 4.00. I get chills between 2.33 and 2.43 and 4.00 and 4.10. Check it out. Himalayan   13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thats where Whitesnake differ from many other "badass" 80s metal bands is that they often have slower sections which are really powerful emotionally. Dunno about you but I hate most thrash metal/death metals bands. I do like a bit of hard rock /80s metal though who know those tracks you typically hear in late 80s/ early 90s action movies with Arnie in dark shades on a bike or something or those power ballads. Most of the music I like though is more blues-rock and I like country music. I love hard rock though as opposed to thrash/death metal, it is much more classier and melodic, e,g tick Whitesnake and Aerosmith as a yes and Slipnot and Korn etc as a big nono. Himalayan  14:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Naqa and Wad ban Naqa are on the main page together and are the top DYK!  Himalayan   10:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I love ancient Egypt and the ancient world though. I wish I had loads of specialist books on the subject! Himalayan   11:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling like Bollywood at the mo. Name an article you wanted expanded, that has some info available online to expand it. Himalayan   11:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found info on production I'm adding now! If only we had such info in production about all Bollywood films! Himalayan   13:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie, yay!


YellowKid64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

 YellowKid64  ( Make articles, not wikidrama ) 07:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock assessment
Agree with your assessment of the sockpuppet. I am almost sure that the just-created Imranazir and Blackpeacock are other puppets. Also plausible are Zareenkhan, 117.96.141.69 and various other IPs. Let me know if you need help with this one. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. My last two pages of contributions has been reverting this persistent vandal's attempts. I'm sure everyone is pretty irritated. Anyway, in case you're not already aware, a sockpuppet investigation has been filed against him/her here. I encourage you to add your two cents given that you have more experience with this user. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sock in question has reappeared on 123.237.189.42 Nirvana888 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks Shahid - hopefully this measure works for the time being. I also am concerned that he has egregiously used multiple IPs to revert in the past and this might occur again. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shahid, do you think is a sock. His editing pattern and modus operendi seem to suggest this could be the case (especially his asinine editing comments followed by "!!!!!!!!" similar to one of his IPs: . Let me know what you think. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. Thank you for reported the account. Yes, it seems that the possible sock is no longer POV pushing so that is fine with me but if he comes back then intervention might be needed. I have not come across any other suspicious activity but I'll be sure to let you know if I do. Take care. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)