User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 9

Hey!

 * Haven't spoken in ages!
 * How's your projects going? Any other GA candidates to embark upon?
 * I've got a month of free time, any projects I need to help with?

Universal Hero (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, I've kept rather low key for the last couple of months, but I'm raring to make a comeback. I'm just cleaning up the South Indian articles, which have been vandalised. I'll reply, with my aims in a couple of days. Universal Hero (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Kachche Dhaage
Why'd you remove the image? gren グレン 08:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened. The anonymous user messed up the image and then you removed it thinking it was dead. Okay, everything is now in its right place. gren グレン 09:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bollywood topics
Hello Meester. Can you think of any more Bollywood specific topics such as awards etc that can be linked in the Bollywood template? Also I would very much like to see an article on the History of Bollywood which I think is very important. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 15:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand that such an article would require some specialist books and references but it is still a missing article nonetheless. If you look at many of the Cinema of pages they have a much fuller written section on the industry through the decades rather than the few paragraphs here. As it is in the article it is fine but I feel we need it to branch out into a more detailed article covering the history of Hindi cinema. Imagine I was visiting the site looking for a quality overview of the history of Bollywood cinema - at present there isn't much to go on except that small paragraph and the film lists by year and perhaps the film awards. I'm certain there are many events that take place each year in the industry through the decades in addition to films that should be documented in an encyclopedia article. I can imagine reading an article on it and getting to 1982/1983 and reading about Amitabh's accident etc and the effect it had ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 16:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to get hold of some books like this I must admit ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 16:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I've just been sorting out some blues musician articles - sorry about the delay. I hadn't forgotten about Zinta -I'd like to see it reinstalled too - but do you think that quote is what the article needs to become a GA again? . If it is a very famous quote then add it but it does seem to stand out a little!! I would pay more attention to the phrasing and sentence structuring in certain sections of the article. Have you had much response from the POV pushers on the tone of the article yet? Do they still think its gushing? Before you propose it for a GA again I feel you need to discuss with Dwaipanc and the others if they feel the neutrality has been addressed. Many editors including myself would pass it as a GA today as before but it would be silly to encounter the Sarvagnya group again if they aren't at least under the impression it has improved ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did seem funny how they would turn up in procession each time. I am of course aware of Amargg and some of the others and their reputation for producing a string of DYK'S related to Karnataka etc. I've also read the Mysore article - (sounds really painful huh -perhaps it could be treated with Savlon?). Which is why I asked them at the time to try to help promote the Zinta article rather than demote it. I think it is a clear GA and I think most of the referencing or tone problems have been addressed. I don't know how long the league of copyeditors will take to actually look at it but in my experience they have always been extremely slow -perhaps due to the backlog of articles that need copyediting. I've just been listening to the great Albert King and Craig Chaquico -cool music   ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 20:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well seems as I've set up the pages on most of the major cinema industries by year around the world within a week!! I reckon I'm entitled to a breather!! I'm very happy with the progress; American, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Bollywood, Pakistan, Mexico, Argentina, South Korea and Hong Kong all now have pages by year with attractive looking templates-next stage of course will be to fill them. Many of the others such as Brazil, Portugal, China, Sweden, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Israel, Bulgaria, Philippines etc of course already have pages by decade. I still find it amazing how many countries have films on wikipedia -people have started articles on Chadian and Senegalese films -the works -we even have a Palestinian film template!!. In the coming days I'll set up Japan and China and perhaps the Philippines. This gives us an excellent platform to build content upon and look at really asserting our control of films. Then with each film in its place we can look at creating the articles and attempting to write articles of the highest standard. In 2008 I am really going to attempt to provide many of the film articles with images -I;m sure you'll agree that screenshots make a huge difference to the film article. Its a shame we can't be more liberal with them ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The most unusual has to be Qaamarngup uummataa - a Greenlandic film!! I am also going to see about getting hold of fair use film trailer media for wikipedia and try to sort out some agreement. It would be interesting to see if we can develop it to the next level and really bring these articles to life by making is possible to upload trailer clips and have short video clips of the films in the articles. I'm certain they can qualify in the same way that music samples can for encyclopedic purposes but that would really be something wouldn't it!!! Perhaps this is pushing copywright, but as a film fan I reckon this would make a hella difference don't ya think to have a short clip of a movie accompanying the article?. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just been looking at buying some bulk lots and collectons on ebay to resell and I cam across this. I bet you;d love that!! -although I'd imagine shipping to Aus would be impossible and cost about as much as the item itself ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was kind of kidding -I'd imagine you;d have tons of cds/cassettes anyway. To be honest that lot looks like a pile of crap doesn't it!!!. I'll only buy good things to resell ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG. Shania here And O my in September 2007  doesn't this woman get better with age?]]]. Shes so beautiful !!!! I love that woman big time!!! Her hair and skin look unreal don't they!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its not the best of articles is it!. Hey Zinta is stunning too -its not as if she is Ugly Betty or anything, I find her very attractive!! but yes I agree it is a combination of factors. I also can't stand cold or arrogant women. Meg Ryan is one of the worst possible - have you have seen her in an interview -terrible. I also dislike Madonna although many people think she is great. Perhaps you may like Madonna though. Shania is indeed a very rare breed. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey spunky is an Aussie term isn't it -you;re turning all Aussie on me!! Strike me ruth you flamin galah!!!. I remember they always used to use that in Neighbours and Home and Away for hot young people. Yet in the UK it caused a bit of a stir -it means something a bit more explicit here!! LOL! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello I'm feeling all Bollywood tonight. For some reason I've gor Asha Bhosle singing inside my head and I don;t know what triggered it!!! Could you find me posters of Aahuti and Aakhri Daku. I can't google find any. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I need a poster for Anjane Mein. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 22:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well? 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs)

No luck huh? Thats a shame. I was hoping there would be one on a website somewhere. Usually google finds something. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

JAh just been trying to find out about korean copyright expiration. Hey I thought at the FA nomination it was pointed out not to include words such as versatility and indian film heroine (I think this is true but some of the others seemed to disagree). I think its fine but what will the POV pushers think at a new nomination? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 18:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case its fine. I am trying to think it terms of what will restore it to its former glory not what actually reads better. I just don't want it to be proposed again and have the Sarvagnya group come up with the same excuse ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats great! Seriously though for a guy who kicked up such a huge fuss over many things =6 edits on a month makes any opinion of his invalid anyway don't you think. If he really cared about how the project developed- personal committments aside most people could conjure up more edits than that in a month. Have a cool day! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 19:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I liked what you said originally amigo earlier. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 19:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

LOl see User talk:Agne27. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 20:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC) How about this: "Following this, she went on to explore a diversity of characters in her films, and contributed to a change in the traditional conception of a Hindi film heroine" ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 13:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Thats OK. Hey my nan is 102 years old today. Born 23.12.1905!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 13:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

She went on to keep her versatility? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 13:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Thats perfect. Don't ponder over it any longer lol!! Hey I've begun filling the Hong kong lists. There is a huge amount of films missing. See Hong Kong films of 1973 etc!! I've just started The Angry Guest (one of several thousand films I need to start)-Hong Kong films are just the epitome of cool -there is an awesome scene on a construction site where one of the baddies is bulldozed over a cliff -hilarious. Eventually the lists will be complete and all the films will be started -the same with Bollywood. Hopefully some HK cinema fans will come along and develop them fully ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 14:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good idea to look at other ones -I was just kidding lol -but it can be a difficult finding the best way to phrase something I agree. Hey I've just started Bandits From Shantung also. I love Hong Kong cinema - of course it is fun - livens wikipedia up from those more serious articles I edit from time to time. There is a huge task ahead though!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 14:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC) I'll have Bollywood films of 1979 filled out by tonight though ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 15:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

She went on to display a range would be better than consolidate. You can't consolidate a range --thats a bit awkward ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 15:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Shahid, You know when a film article begins e.g Aag is a 1994 in film|1994 Bollywood film or whatever. Can you make a note of whenever you come across a film from now on that this is linked e.g [Bollywood films of 1994|1994]. This I think makes it more unique to Bollywood and connects to the years in Bollywood film ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

He he. Thats fine buddy. Can;t believe how wintry its got here today -the fog is drifting in thickly from the Bristol Channel -you can barely see out -and the roads are apparently jammed with last minute christmas shoppers -stupid arses!! They never learn do they. This time last year I was in the middle of several thousand people working in Marks and Spencer. Glad I'nm not there today!! i'll add the titles to 1979 later anyway -I've got some tagging and template fixing to do now. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Very bad news. Check your email ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Its funny but I was going to suggest using this reference and I find it is already being used!! There does seem evidence to show it is becoming increasingly popular in the US although as i'm not american I couldn't possibly comment on what ethnicity are watching them in the states. I;m sure it isn't entirely just south asian immigrants as is being suggested here. Perhaps you could find some additional sources perhaps to silence them? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 15:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC) I don;t know -in that reference there is this: "For the South Asian community in major U.S. metropolitan cities like Chicago and New York, the names of Bollywood megastars Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachan are just as big, if not bigger, than Hollywood stars like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt". ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 15:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If I was you I'd be a bit more specific -I;m sure in places like Nebraska and many places in the US they;ve probably know little about Hollywood!! let alone Bollywood!! Its more than likely becoming popular in the major cities (in Chicago and New York etc as that source suggests) and in diaspora communities where they probably have cinemas which show Indian movies. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes only Indians also is a generalization and is not right. I'll add something to balance it a bit - if you disagree then feel free to revert ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 15:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Always best to stick to fact. I am certain there are thousands of white/black americans etc who are interested in Bollywood films $100 mill is still a fair bit of dough! but the source higlights the cultural significance of the films in the big cities amongst the south asian populations where amitabh and shadrukh are considered even bigger stars than cruise or pitt I'm judging by this. Best to study the revenue of the films and where they are the most popular whilst not making any generalizations. Very interesting that in Aus half the people watching the films are not Indians. I would love to see the growth of Bollywood in the UK - i for one would be the first to the cinema to watch them!! Saludos!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like statements such as these "Bollywood is hugely popular in Oceanic Countries such as Fiji, New Guinea and Indonesia whereby there is a strong hold" -it gives the impression that lives of the people in the Oceanic countires is dominated by Bollywood.Perhaps you could reword this and find a reference to support such a strong statement ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 18:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Yes that often happens ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 18:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mm unfortunately this is the flaw of wikipedia in that all sorts of people can edit it and provide false info -quite the opposite of the truth, not good. -particularly as you have to spend half of your editing time reverting their stupidity. I don't like words such as huge success and stronghold either. It would make it easier if the "hot" Bollywood articles had some sort of permanent protection (a lock), but following my experience with having to revert the Tibet article, obtaining this is difficult ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 18:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysore is FA


Thanks for your comments which helped address MoS issues in the article. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 07:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

bravery award
Hi! What do you mean by "what do you thonk about the ... bravery award?" Do you mean about the award article? Or, the mention of the aweard in Zinta article? The mention is fine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow!!!! That's great. Wonderful. Unfortunately, it was not added in Portal:India/DYK, I have added it now. I used to be one of the people updating that India DYK regularly, but have not been around for some days now. If you see some India-related DYKs in teh main page DYK section, please try to update it in the India DYK section as well. Again, congrats for the DYK...Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lata Mangeshkar
Sorry, I didn't have the time to look at your edits, because I'm in hurry to catch a train -- I'll be on a vacation till Dec 31. I'm sure your edits would only improve the article. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year in advance. Cheers! utcursch | talk 06:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Playback singing
Hey Shahid, I totally agree with you. Thanks for pointing it out. That is why I removed the section and added in the "notes" section for the film Dev that she did the playback singing for the song. Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 03:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you amigo. Wish you all the best for 2008!! Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 17:05, 24 December 2007
 * Time to rejoice, Akki is ranked second on Rediff's list of Top 10 Most Powerful Actors of 2007. =) I know you don't give a damn about these lists but take a look at the rest. It is pretty interesting. Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 17:39, 24 December 2007

Kareena Kapoor
Hey Shahid. Hope you had a great Christmas. I sure did. LOL. Anyways, I need your help with something. This is what it reads on Kapoor's page as of now: This led to irreconcilable differences between her parents and resulted in her mother leaving the house along with Kapoor and her sister. as to the previous one: This led to irreconcilable differences between her parents and they decided to separate, resulting in her mother taking her along with her sister. The ref on Kapoor's article as well as other sources indicate that her parents weren't officially divorced, her mother just left the house with her two daughters. I feel that it is important to indicate her relationship between her parents, and her father and her. This is shown in Kapoor's recent interview on Mumbai Mirror I feel that this part of the interview is very important in talking about those things:

What was your financial condition like before Karisma started working?

''Mum was always doing something, she single-handedly brought us up. She has a real estate business apart from other small businesses. It was tough. Though my father is also an important factor in my life.''

I think you are being too nice to him…

''(Pauses) I don't know if I am being too nice. My mum has never imposed her thoughts on us on how to feel about our father. She has the strength to forgive and forget.''

Were you getting financial support from the Kapoor clan or were you left alone to fend for yourselves?

''We were left alone to fend for ourselves. But now we see more of our father, though we did not see him often in our initial years. We are a family now.''

Your parents are back together?

''Well, they were never officially divorced. They have been living separately. They never really fought. Now he comes home, we go out for dinners, we are planning a holiday.''

Could you help me incorporate some of these info as well as some of her quotes on Kapoor's article. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 04:29, 27 December 2007
 * Hey thanks for your help. The thing you added about her mother is good enough. As for her "training to become an actress under Kishor Namit Kapoor, the founder of Kapoor Acting Lab", ref. 13 Socha tha kya, kya ho gaya? and ref. 12 Rediff Interview indicates that she began specifically training after completing her education. Only MDK & MPKDH in the breakthrough section are given scope. However, I feel that your version is good too but I think that the quotes that we give from the critics show her becoming typecast and people don't have to click on the ref. to read the quote. What do you think? -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 19:03, 27 December 2007
 * I completely agree that both MDK and MPKDH were bad films. LOL. I will try working on it too. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 19:23, 27 December 2007
 * Shahid, what do you think about Kapoor's section now? I rewrote the MDK and MPKDH part and it looks much better now. However, this is just the beginning of Kapoor's career. As years go by, I will combine some of her sections. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 04:05, 28 December 2007
 * It is not bad. This is how it reads as of now: During 2002-2003, Kapoor went through a negative period in her career. Featuring in six films, all of which proved unsuccessful, she appeared in two high profile films: Kunal Kohli's directorial debut Mujhse Dosti Karoge! (2002) and Sooraj R. Barjatya's Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon (2003). Although produced by two of the biggest production houses in Bollywood, Yash Raj Films and Rajshri Productions respectively, both films were critical and commercial failures in India but generated great business overseas. While her performance in the former was described as "inconsistent", her performance in the latter was criticized, "Kapoor was annoying in her role as Sanjana - a role we have seen her act many times before in movies such as [Karan] Johar's K3G (2001), [Subhash] Ghai's Yaadein (2001) and more recently [S J] Suryah's Khushi (2003)." These films marked the time when critics expressed their displeasure of her repetitious kind of roles, and criticized that she was indeed in danger of becoming typecast which was fundamental in her attempting a diversity of more adventurous roles in the years following.


 * I just changed the first half of the sentence while the second half is the same. I have a minor concern. This part that you wrote: Although produced by two of the biggest production houses in Bollywood, Yash Raj Films and Rajshri Productions, respectively, and although generated great business overseas, both films were critical and commercial failures in India. I feel that it reads as a drag on and the second use of although ruins it. The way I wrote it is better. I feel that the first version you suggested: [("These films marked the time when critics expressed") is better. However, the other one is not that bad either. Which one do you think is better? -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 07:33, 28 December 2007
 * Shahid, I needed to ask you for your advice, which is something I always do. LOL. If Kapoor goes on to deliver success post JWM, do you think it would be better if we just closed the "Turning Point, 2004-present" section by changing it to "Turning Point, 2004-2006", and adding another section called "Success, 2007-present" or combining some of the sections and just having the sub-heading titles of "Early career/work", "Breakthrough" and "Success". What do you think? -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 07:53, 28 December 2007
 * Yeah, I completely agree with you. That is why I bolded the word "if" in my previous message. I will only add the "sucess" section if she continues with it for 3-4 yrs. The other thing I also agree with you is the subheadings. Kapoor is only at the beginning of her and as I said as years progress, I will consider merging sections. I was thinking of waiting until the end of 2008/beginning of 2009 to consider adding the success section. Come to think of it, she has close to 4 releases according to what is written right now. Kambakth Ishq might release in 2009 and Milenge Milenge looks like it won't release on Feb 15 as it is not included on Indiafm.com's release date lists, and according to what I believe, there are still portions of the film left to shoot. What do you say? Is that fine? -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 17:29, 28 December 2007

Merry Xmas
Hello! Just making a quick stop. Wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year. Hope you have a good one. Hope your doing well. -- Pa7 15:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please be civil
Nevertheless, Blofeld of SPECTRE supported the same point that I was supporting. I am well established editor. You just can't see it. I will blank my talk page again in due time. If you are interested in reading previous posts on my talk page, you are welcome to visit its history. Blessings! Believe me, I hate you! (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Arguing with me is useless and same is the case with you. Whatever you say, your generalization was opposed by Blofeld of SPECTRE in such a polite way that even you could not feel it. My version was not final but a suggestion (a foundation, if you will) on which current version is based. I am well established editor. You will never be able to see it. Don't believe everything you see. Blessings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrParkash (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there!
Just dropped by to say Merry Christmas!

Have fun, -xC- 19:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Deewangi ?? Deewangi ???
Hi, Merry Xmas from me too. found your name in the Om Shanti Om conversation list. would you explain to me that meaning of the song title ? I am writing the Chinese version. how about 1 day we start an article just about the song itself ??<P>Mori Riyo (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)</P>

Shaktism FA - advice needed
Hi, Shaktism passed GA, but has received a bad response at the FAC nomination. What do you suggest, should the article be with drawn? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Other users
Hi Shahid hope your having a good Christmas. I tell you what I'm tired of encountering frickin idiots on this site who nothing at all about editing and think that their edits which can be counted on one page are justification for their actions. There are so many who are clueless about what is acceptable that I really worry! Check out User talk:Thesydneyknowitall and the history of Speed (film) which only has two screenshots per article standard anyway not twenty!. When are people going to learn ? I'm getting tired of encountering these nobodies who try to unsuccessfully get in my way ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not getting angry - it is just annoying these niggly little people trying to mess things up. Then there are editors who don't even have a user page giving you "official" messages telling you what wikipedia is and what wikipedia's policy is. But it doesn't stop there. There are administrators who have put in less than 1/10th of what I have to wikipedia but use their tools to edit non constructively. The other day a trigger happy admin nuked almost entirely everyone of my Randall and Hopkirk images. -around 35 of them which all had detailed rationales but were missing the title of the pages. Rather than contact me or actually bother quickly adding them to help the project and save them he deleted them. They were luckily restored almost immediately by a more experienced admin. I dreaded to think what goes on elsewhere in the project with editors about like this!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shahid -I have two GA nominations up at the same time! Thunderball (film) and The World is Not Enough!! I don't know if you know but the beautiful Riya Sen is up for GA also. Perhaps you could give it the traditional shshshsh treatment and help promote it! Regards Baldy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 14:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup go for it!! So long as the non RS brigade don't turn up again. Are you certain the others are happy with the sources and tone now. I personally think its a joke that it was brought down by ganging up to a B class -its a clear GA and may others think it has FA potential too. I'll look at the shetty article in a minute -that been pretty well developed since this January last year anyway with BB but in a year it should have cleaned up noticeably. I'd noticed you;d done some work on it. I;ll read it now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Shetty was once featured in Mani Ratnam's stage show, Netru, Indru, Naalai". Could you find a date for this as it seems a bit out of order ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 14:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not bad but needs a lot of work and there are some statements that need addressing. Like with Zinta I'm not a fan of controversy sections if it can be avoided but I think here it is necessary. However I don't like to see parts telling you to read below as a good encyclopedia articles should provide the information in a structured way that you needn't repeat a subject twice. For instance you;d expect to read about BB in the initial section which seems to highlihgit the positive aspects of the experiece with the negative discussed below. For me a good article would cover both in a balanced and neutral way in one section. I also feel the mafia section is too long and needs a thorough copy edit and is doesn;t flow. i'd also like to see a bit more discussion of her career and performances - I know she hasn't been as successful as an actress as Zinta but perhaps you could develop it and cover the reception of her films a bit more other than summarising them as a flop. I'd also like to see the article end with a more postitive section rather than controversy. Other than this it conveys a lot of information quite well. Unfortunately these days I have no idea what people's idea of a GA is. Good work anyway ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 15:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on actors comparisons and general attitude of the films is always a very good idea, provided it is written in a neutral way which avoids too much subjective content and matter from their viewpoint. There are so many angles which should be addressed in an article on an actor, I personally think writing a biographical article on a living person, particularly an actor or director in an entertainment industry dominated by self promotion and materialism is one of the most if not the most difficult type of article to write because of the difficulties of providing a completely neutral viewpoint and balancing the sources -quite complex I think. You seem to be improving all the time though. I'm feeling a bit tired today -too much sugar - I have a serious addiction to Jelly babies which I always get at christmas and butter toffee popcorn, and it feels like I've got glucose flowing through my veins today lol! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I created an article on Fareb (2005 film) -wow those sisters look fine. I also started an article on the direcotr who is usually an actor -Dipak Tijori -for some reason Deepak Tijori is blockaded -I requested admin to move it to Deepak. This clears some red links in a number of places. I don't know if you know the plot the film etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 16:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A big coincidence but I happened to come across Main Khiladi Tu Anari earlier and tagged it for clean up. Then on looking at my latest talk page message I see you mentioned it earlier -wow thats a hot 19 year old on you tube!! Can you clean up Main Khiladi Tu Anari? The plot is terribly written ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

hey there
this removal of content - you sure there isn't anything useful there, buddy?

what about the charity drive dancing, peta membership, and nightclub controversy? -xC- 10:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * whoa! detailed reply! ;)
 * no problem, its what I figured, but thought I'd check with you anyway.
 * Take care, -xC- 10:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Films
Hey Shahid, how was your Christmas?? Did you see Taare Zameen Par and Welcome? The former is truly truly exceptional. What a performance from child actor Darsheel Safary and Aamir Khan. This kid has a long future ahead. I also saw Welcome but honestly, I didn't like it. No Entry was better and Akki's previous films Namastey London and Heyy Babyy were better. Wishing you all the best for the new year!!! All the best in 2008!! -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 21:24, 31 December 2007
 * Same here! Bollywood actors are like this. After they deliver a success, they feel that they're on top of this world. For example, look at Shahrukh Khan. He knows he is the best that is why he always boasts it off. LOL. Well, in my opinion, Kareena was wrong and she shouldn't have said something like that but what can you do.... they're all Bollywood actors. To be honest, I think she was referring an actress has someone who has done a variation of roles and have showed their acting skills in various films. In my opinion, the only film that showed that Priyanka and Bipasha could act were Aitraaz and Raaz respectively. There might be more but I can' think of them now. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 18:40, 1 January 2008
 * LOL. Nice one! Ha Ha! That was funny!! The funny thing is that there are only three nominations for Best Actress. LOL. The Star Screen Awards don't want to stand out that is why they added the Best Child Artiste section and included Darsheel Safary in it. Major reason: So they can give Shahrukh Khan the Best Actor for Chak De India. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 20:10, 2 January 2008

Happy New Year
Best wishes for the forthcoming year! Universal Hero (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

=HAPPY NEW YEAR= Happy New Year Shahid!!! I've made a creative start to the new year today!!!! I can't keep that up!! All the best anyway. Whats with User talk:Shshsh? Isn't that pathetic somebody's copied you? LOL! (Whats gone wrong with my signature why is the centre burgundy?) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shahid. Please remember to connect the years e.g Aag is a 1994 Bollywood film etc link to Bollywood films of 1994!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Winners

 * Best Film - Taare Zameen Par, Taare Zameen Par, Taare Zameen Par, Taare Zameen Par (LOL)


 * Best Director - Mani Ratnam - Guru


 * Best Actor (Male) - Darsheel Safary - Taare Zameen Par (LOL, but since he is not nominated, then Abhishek Bachchan for Guru; Shahrukh was good but Abhishek was better)


 * Best Actor (Female) - Kareena Kapoor - Jab We Met (I haven't seen Cheeni Kum so I can't comment on Tabu's performance)


 * Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Male) - Darshan Jariwala - Gandhi My Father


 * Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Female) Either Shefali Shah for Gandhi My Father or Tisca Chopra for Taare Zameen Par but just like you, I feel that the former will win.


 * Best Actor in a Negative Role (Male/ Female) - Viviek Oberoi – Shoot Out At – Lokhandwala (I haven't seen Black Friday, so I can't really judge his performance)


 * Best Actor in a Comic Role (Male/ Female) - Govinda – Partner


 * Best Playback Singer (Male) Shaan – Jab Se Tere Naina – Saawariya


 * Best Playback Singer (Female) - Shreya Ghoshal - Barso Re Megha – Guru


 * Best Lyrics - Gulzar – Bol Na Halke - Jhoom Barabar Jhoom


 * Best Story Amole Gupte - Taare Zameen Par or Jaideep Sahni – Chak De! India


 * Best Screenplay - Amole Gupte - Taare Zameen Par


 * Best Music - Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy – Jhoom Barabar Jhoom


 * Best Choreography - Vaibhavi Merchant – Aaja Nachle - Aaja Nachle


 * Most Promising Newcomer (Male) - Ranbir Kapoor – Saawariya


 * Most Promising Newcomer (Female) - Deepika Padukone – Om Shanti Om


 * Most Promising Debut Director - Aamir Khan - Taare Zameen Par


 * Best Child Artiste - Darsheel Safary - Taare Zameen Par

-- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 21:47, 2 January 2008
 * Shahid, do you know how many images (images that show the actor's milestone) we are allowed to use in an actor's article. I remember you saying something about only 3-4 images are allowed to be used but Bette Davis uses so many. I agree that she was a very elderly actress who was in Hollywood for a long time. Does it mean that the longer the actor is in the industry, the more images can be used. I don't want many images but I want to have four images on Kareena Kapoor's article (Refugee (maybe; don't know whether to put this or the one from Omkara), K3G, Chameli, Omkara (maybe) and JWM) -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 18:25, 4 January 2008
 * No, I totally agree with you. That is why I indicated a maybe for Refugee. As for the one in Omkara, it will probably have to be removed because of JWM. K3G, Chameli and JWM should be sufficient enough. I don't want to add too many images as the page would look too crowded and bad. That's why I'll leave it the way it is. If she wins the Filmfare Best Actress Award for JWM, I'll removed the one from Omkara as the image from JWM would be more notable even when she is down 20/30 yrs in her career because it earned Kapoor her first Filmfare Best Actress Award. Thanks for everything Regards -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 19:26, 4 January 2008
 * BTW, did you see the nominations for Star Screen Award Jodi No. 1. The nominations are as follows: Abhishek-Aishwarya, Akshay-Katrina, Shahid-Kareena, Ranbir-Sonam and Shahrukh-Deepika. Who do you think will win? I think it is going to be Abhishek and Aishwarya (Because they got married this year) or Shahrukh and Deepika (Because of Shahrukh; LOL) -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 19:29, 4 January 2008
 * In my opinion, I think that Kapoor looks better without makeup. I thought that she looked pretty horrible in portions of K3G as she had so much makeup on. LOL. She looked terrible!!! As for the Star Screen Award Jodi No. 1, that was what I was thinking about. What if??? LOL. Now, that would be weird and ironical. Ha Ha! But both of them mentioned that they had no negativity towards each other and that they're still good friends. In a recent interview, Kapoor said "Unfortunately I shall be away in Greece since January shooting for Tashan. I will not be in Mumbai for any awards ceremony." She indicated that she would ask her sister to recieve the award on her behalf. So if they win, then Shahid and Lolo would be on the stage together, now that would be a bit awkward. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 19:54, 4 January 2008
 * I also forgot to mention something. I think that Ranbir and Sonam also have a chance of winning. Many people were going ga-ga with their on-screen chemistry. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 19:56, 4 January 2008
 * What do you mean? I don't get your question? -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 20:09, 4 January 2008

Based on the response to the chemistry of couple I have heard this past year, I have listed the jodis in the order which I feel have the greatest chance of winning.


 * 1) Abhishek-Aishwarya


 * 2) Shahid-Kareena


 * 3) Ranbir-Sonam


 * 4) Shahrukh-Deepika

-- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 20:12, 4 January 2008
 * 5) Akshay-Katrina
 * LOL. Okay, here goes:


 * 1) Tashan (I was a big fan of the Dhoom and Dhoom 2 series. After a bad list of films in 2007, I am expecting a lot from Yash Raj Films. The film looks promising as well and I want to see the chemistry between Saif-Bebo & Akki-Bebo.)


 * 2) Kambakth Ishq (I love the chemistry between the Akki-Bebo pair. Personally, I like them a lot together. They share a great chemistry on screen.)


 * 3) Roadside Romeo (I want to see the collaboration between YRF and Walt Disney Studios. The results should prove to be spectacular. Also Kareena giving a voice-over to an animated character adds more excitement.)


 * 4) Golmaal Returns and Milenge Milenge (Both of these movies are tied. I am not dying to watch these movies but I am looking forward to them. The former is a laugh-riot and the latter brings back her and Shahid.)


 * There are other films that she is being considered for such as Sajid Khan's Next and RK Banner's Next. However, I didn't include them on my list as they're not finalised yet. What about you? Which one are you looking forward too? -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 20:25, 4 January 2008
 * Yeah, her look in Kyon Ki composes of saris and very little makeup. That's what I like about it. I also think she looks really good in saris. The one that she wore during the Saawariya premiere was gorgeous. She looked really good in it. I think that they were good friends while filming Kyon Ki but during the Rockstars concert, some misunderstanding happened. Now, I hear that they're doing a film called Mr and Mrs. Khanna, which I think is a rumour. She hasn't mentioned it in any of her interviews. I am also looking forward to watch Zinta in The Last Lear and Heaven on Earth. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 20:37, 4 January 2008
 * Oh yeah, I forgot about Har Pall. I know that it is a love story but is it one of those serious/realistic films like Maine Gandhi Koi Nahin Mara that aims for critical success rather than commercial success or does it aim for the latter. Out of all Zinta's upcoming films, the most anticipated one for me is Heaven on Earth. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 20:55, 4 January 2008
 * I haven't seen Zubeidaa. Is it good? Amrita Rao said in a recent interview on Indiafm.com (The B-Biz News with Taran Adarsh) that she is currently filming for Shyam Benegal's next film. LOL, but the strange thing is that she indicated that it is not an art film, it is a comedy. LOL. Looks like he is changing his tracks. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 20:58, 4 January 2008
 * Yeah, I didn't rephrase it properly. What I was actually trying to ask was whether it was a commercial film or not. LOL. Stupid me! Ha Ha!! As you said, I think Har Pall is a realistic commercial film (love story). Maybe something like Devdas or HDDCS. But i feel that the Indian audience is not open to these new films and don't appreciate art cinema. For example, excellent films like Fiza, Omkara, Zubeidaa, and a lot more should have done well. Audiences should be open to new types of films. Indian cinema is evolving from what it used to be but if audiences don't support them then everyone is going to make stupid films that are only looking for commercial success. What you mentioned in my previous message about Saawariya was funny. LOL. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 21:19, 4 January 2008
 * No, I am not. LOL. Hold on. I'll give you the link. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 21:20, 4 January 2008
 * Here is the link. (http://www.indiafm.com/broadband/video/eTC-Zee-Music/rmzJJJ55/1/B-BIZ-Episode-158-Part-2.html) -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 21:23, 4 January 2008
 * Shahid, I needed to ask you a question. Looking at Yash Raj Films's track record in 2007, and the promos of Tashan, do you think the film will do well? I don't know why but I have a strong feeling that because of Akki, the film will do well. I think that audiences want to see him back in action roles. Well let's hope and pray it does well. -- Bolly wood Dreamz <font color = "Black"> Talk 21:38, 4 January 2008

Sexy Shilpa
LOL what happened here. What was that about sexy Shilpa and Johnny? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <small style="color:Black">Talk? 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was kinda wondering amigo? I thought there was some sort of joke. How'd ya miss that one lol!! Oh Johnny your're SOOO sexy baby!! LOL. Shilpa yes of course, but Johnny? Bollywood blog doesn't even have an image on him. The Follically Challenged One ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <small style="color:Black">Talk? 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Shilpa Shetty
Hi there. Yes, I'll surely get around to re-editing the Shilpa Shetty article and bring it up to GA and FA-class standard.

About Romanov Vodka, it is Wikipedia convention to mention people's commercial endorsements. I.e: there is no reason why such endorsements cannot be mentioned. It is also not a very good practice to remove sourced/referenced information, as it may be done with good intentions but it can also be construed as vandalism. I'm aware that there has been a culture at WP:INCINE to remove mentions of commercial endorsements moved by certain editors. Shahid, this is wrong. I am telling you this because I can see from your contribs list that you are a very active contributor to Bollywood-oriented articles and it is very good that you are so enthusiastic. But unfortunately we have been noticing for a long time that the WP:INCINE project has no real direction or formal/informal standard for articles. Hopefully this will change in the near future because I plan to set some things in motion later this month when I will have more time.

Anyway, forgive my rambling. Back to the topic, it is ok for Wikipedia to list and detail any person's commercial endorsements. For example, Shilpa Shetty has recently launched her own perfume, cookery book and other things as a direct result of the Big Brother controversy so this will have to be mentioned. Wikipedia even has entire articles dedicated to a person's merchandise, for example Britney Spears.

So if you don't mind, I'm going to re-insert the Romanov Vodka information and probably enlarge the article with more information, sourced and referenced of course. Hope you're well. Ekantik talk 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again.


 * You said: "Hi again! I'm sorry, but I disagree with you in that particular case. I have absolutely no problem with mentioning endorsements of actors, as long as they are notable. Launching a new perfume is great and definitely can be mentioned, but Vodka? I can't understand the matter of making a whole section for endorsement for Vodka, when actually nothing regarding her actual work there is mentioned."


 * Well it is only a short paragraph within a section about her other commitments away from filming and acting, not a "whole section". Perhaps you need to define "notability" in this case. WP:NOTE doesn't preclude the inclusion of commercial endorsements so long as it has been reported by verifiable and reliable sources. Personally I cannot understand why you draw a difference between perfume and vodka, what's the difference? They are both commercial products she is endorsing. And there is much more she has endorsed that needs to be catalogued, verified, and included. Ditto for all other actors. I don't understand what exactly you mean when you say "nothing regarding her actual work is mentioned". Could you please explain what you mean by that? Do you mean there is no information regarding what she has actually done for Romanov Vodka? Well, there is plenty of information, such as the fact that she has done TV and radio advertisements for them, as well as appeared on public advertising billboards and all the other typical brouhaha that goes with advertising a commercial product. Trouble is, none of that can be sourced reliably. :) That is what I was telling you at Talk: Shah Rukh Khan, there is a serious problem with the Indian media in that it doesn't report very much of these things, so no guarantee of reliable sources for Wikipedia. I don't think this requires removal of the information per se though, considering what we do have.


 * In any case, it is good to see that you don't have a problem with the inclusion of commercial endorsement information for all actors connected with WP:INCINE. :) That is a refreshing change from the attitudes of the old guard of editors who, frankly speaking, had no idea how to write an article.


 * You said: "Well, the Britney Spears article is not a good template for inspiration. It has recently failed an FAC. And even if you want to do the same, remember that while her article presents numerous endorsements, you have a whole section dedicated to only one. Have a look at some FAs and you will see that there are no such mentions. But still, I repeat, I have no problem with endorsements, but there must be some significance to it. As I said above, unless there is some controversy behind it, something that is genuinely notable, a description of her work -- it's non-notable. So this one is clearly non-notable. Launching her own perfume is notable, but an endorsement for some vodka, one of thousands endorsements she may have done, is..."


 * Thanks Shahid, but I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know what's notable and what's not. As mentioned earlier, WP:NOTE doesn't preclude any information about commercial endorsements/product launches so long as they have been sourced reputably. I personally don't understand what you mean when you say there must be significance to an endorsement, what do you mean? What is the significance of Beyonce, Pink and Britney Spears all doing the same Pepsi advert? There isn't one, but it is just mentioned that they endorsed it, along with a whole host of other products. (They all have sections for their endorsements too.) There doesn't have to be a controversy behind a product endorsement to get it mentioned on Wikipedia. Where does it say that in WP:NOTE? By the way, I just now found this. If I remember correctly, Xc wanted to create one such page for Hrithik Roshan back when she was a new editor. I don't know what became of that, but I didn't see any problem with it and neither did other editors.
 * As for FA-class articles, could you show me an example of an FA-article that initially failed FA-requirements because of mentions of product endorsements? I only mentioned Britney Spears because there is a separate article dedicated to her endorsements (since she has done many) and there are other such pages connected with other people. I also couldn't find any mention of the recent failed FAC you made, perhaps you meant the third peer-review?


 * You said: "A BLP should provide biographical information; a new own perfume is great, and endorsements are great only for one of the above-mentioned reasons, but mentioning one of many endorsements in one section is definitely not an encyclopedic stuff. Have you seen an encyclopedia entry for some actor mentioning something of the sort? PETA and HIV drives are great causes, part of her humanitarian work, therefore very notable, as they constitute a part of her very biography."


 * Well that was my point. I will be including much more information about her product endorsements either in that section devoted to her commitments, or it may require a new section about her endorsements. Perhaps a new article even, I'm fine either way. The only reason the Romanov Vodka stayed in there for so long was because there was no other place to put it. As you say, it is stupid to create an entire section for just a short paragraph, which is why it happily remained within a section generically describing other commitments apart from Bollywood. So perhaps we may need to create a new section for product endorsements/launches that will include information about Romanov Vodka, perfume, cookery book, etc. Just today I've found out more products that she has brought out, so this is all going to be referenced and included in a new reorganised section for commercial endorsements.


 * You are correct in noting that Shilpa Shetty is a BLP article. I might further add that it has a stronger priority with WP:BLP than with WP:INCINE. Do you have any experience with BLP articles outside of INCINE or WP:INDIA?


 * You said: "As for "It is also not a very good practice to remove sourced/referenced information, as it may be done with good intentions but it can also be construed as vandalism." - Just to note, it doesn't apply to established editors who have been working on an article, and although I immesely appreciate your terrific work on this article, I have full right (and equal to yours) to edit this article."


 * Yes, Shahid, I don't deny that you have a right to edit the article and never disputed that. I remember you were starting out as a newbie editor when I was around last time and I am glad that you have come so far with WP:INCINE and have done a tremendous amount of work. But unfortunately I think that you are wrong about established editors being able to delete referenced information. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia conventions look down on the removal of sourced information as that is taken as a subtraction of the information available on Wikipedia. The only real and justifiable reason for removal of information is if the info is potentially libellous or otherwise defamatory to the subject. Of course if such information must be included, it must be reliably sourced. This is a requirement made directly by Jimbo Wales and WP:BLP happens to be extremely strict in this regard. If you want to remove information because you think it is non-notable, I think it is Wikipedia convention that the burden of proof falls on the deleter to show how the info is non-notable.


 * You said: "We better try to expand her brief career section, rather than adding things to make the article longer. I have expanded her career section, her lead, fought vandalism down the months, and impolite editors on the talk page as well; so I also can remove something which is non-notable. I'm not going to remove it now, I hope you get the matter and do it for yourself. I don't want an edit war."


 * That's good, Shahid, because I don't want an edit war either and see no reason why there should be one. By the way, Wikipedia is not paper. :) Discussions about text like this should really follow the Wikipedia BRD procedure. I totally agree with you about expanding the necessary sections. The only reason why I didn't do that myself is because I couldn't find any reliable sources. :) That's why we're back to square one! :) The sad thing is that there just isn't enough information from the Indian media on the Net, especially for actors gone by. I suppose it's something that we have regular news coming through now because of the Internet, and India is slowly waking up to the benefits of having news websites, but what about actors gone by? If you ask me, actors like Raj Kapoor, Shammi Kapoor, Dilip Kumar, Dharmendra, Nargis etc. were the real greats of Indian cinema and their articles should really be something to show off about. Unfortunately there is extremely little printed verifiable information about any of these actors. Even a recent-ish actress like Shilpa Shetty, it is too hard to find any reliable information about her background unless one is prepared to thumb through old issues of Stardust, Cineblitz, Filmfare etc. So this is a problem that we have to figure out a solution for.


 * You said: "If you still disagree, we'll take it to some noticeboard or a better idea will be to turn to some editors, whom I met on FACs and who constantly vote on FACs, for their opinion. Then it will get clear. In fact, I believe, we both are trying to improve the article."


 * Yes, of course the improvement of the article is the only thing we have in mind. The only question is how to improve it and with what? I'm afraid I still disagree with the removal of the information although I'm prepared to reorganise it within the auspices of a dedicated section or sub-section devoted to commercial endorsements. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by talking to editors involved with FAC although you can do that if you want, I think it is far too early. I think it is reasonable to bring it upto GA-class first and then think about FA after that. I'm also not too concerned with this whole competition of bringing articles to GA-class and FA-class for the fun of it, as a well-written article doesn't necessarily need a badge. That may be my view, your mileage may vary.
 * A good place to discuss this issue would be the Village Pump (Policy). You can go ahead and start a discussion there if you want. One such discussion already took place when User:Zora took issue and picked a bone with this same Romanov Vodka information, and she ended up without a leg to stand on. The general consensus was that it is perfectly ok to mention commercial endorsements so long as they have been sourced reliably per WP:NOTE, and it is not necessarily so that such an endorsement should be "significant" by way of controversy or other distinguishing feature. I see no evidence that that consensus has changed. If it did, we wouldn't have such sections or articles for Britney Spears, Beyonce, Jessica Simpson, etc etc. Those articles are only mentioned because they have a significantly large number of editors working on them and are especially prone to partisan edits and/or vandalism.


 * Anyhow, best regards, Ekantik talk 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you don't mind, I'll paste this exchange at Talk: Shilpa Shetty since other editors could also register their inputs or be better informed. Ekantik talk 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Preity Zinta
No problems. Just be aware that I'm still far from finished. I hope to be finished with a bit more of the copyediting, maybe by Tuesday. I'm right now trying to tag all the Melanesia articles for the new work groups, so that maybe we can try drawing members to them, and that's taking a good deal longer than I had hoped, for which you have my sincerest apologies. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

=Nargis=

Hello Shahid,

I do not quite understand what was so offensive in my last edit on Nargis that it got reverted. What is so wrong in mentioning that her father was a Mohyal from Rawalpindi? Please do not revert it without discussing.

Best regards, Hu114sp (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)