User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 17

Sholay

I can't understand why you deleted my changes to the Sholay article. I added a few factual statements regarding the versions of the film that are available, and you deleted them. Now I understand why that article is such a disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New message

I could see you were busy and my message were pretty pointless anyway. I thought you might have been interested to know I made my 150,000th edit on the beautiful and intelligent Miss Zinta thats all. Wowo John's really stated his case today hasn't he lol! I thought his words about her fathers military background having an important influence on her being the "only man in Bollywood" was genius. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Its a shame he doesn't have time to do more editing in the mainspace these days as he is bogged down with taggin and trouble with lowly editors. If his IQ is 166 as it says he is indeed in the category of high genius. The only person I know in the UK with an IQ that high is Carol Vorderman. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be impossible to find out who compiles the BOI statistics? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just remember that he is fighting to the core to stop the article being promoted and will do absolutely anything to stop it. He appears to be scared now that the others have changed their opposes and has suddenly propelled into action. The strength of his arguments are very thin indeed. Anyway how are you my friend? Did you buy that Hindi encyclopedia afterwards? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If I had the money I would have bought it for you as a birthday present or something. Books on cinema are always really cool. When is your birthday Mr. Shahid? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes you a Leo the Lion I think. Same as my sister. Do you think its true the traits? I know Taurus is extremely accurate for me. Whenever I've ever read anything about Taurus they always emphasise passion and a very sexual/loving nature. Probably why I am so obsessed with all these beautiful women I keep showing you!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Now that is what you call canvassing. And there was me thinking he only used email to canvass support. I can't even think to imagine why he bothers to go out of his way to stop progression on wikipedia.There just really isn't any reason to is there!!! I doubt I'll ever understand his purpose ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC) OMG Shahid earlier I looked at the Tibet article and I nearly cried at what had happened to it. For worse than even the Guevara article. I just spent time trying to restore most of it and condensing again. An d now people are going to get all defensive. Ahhh. I really feel like crying at how it could have eroded so much. Please send me a box of Kleenex. Boo-hoo . I hope I've improved it from what it was earlier ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

A nice cup of tea for Mr. Shahid

...for the very kind words! I might just do that.... --69.22.254.108 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy? Me?

I think maybe you sent the comment to the wrong person? But, for what it's worth, I don't think such canvassing is permitted. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi

I was thinking along those lines. I'm almost shocked that his buddies have not come to play too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHILLAX

Hey I just saw your posts on talk pages and I would suggest you to 'cool down' a bit and ignore attempts by others to get you 'involved' in a dirty bout. I know you have put a lot of hardwork in the the article but getting ruffled by some cavassing won't serve a bit. Be confident of your article now that Tony has withdrawn his oppose and Lase has given you a support. Personally I have been tryin to read the whole article but other stuff is keeping me busy. Best of luck! KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

Have a look at this site: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2003/0KHNH.php --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The figures here tallies with BOI (almost), taking into consideration fluctuating dollar rate (and the fact that movie revenue figures are subject to change as years go by). So, this tallying of figures can be a point for reliability of BOI, given that this site itself is RS (which it seems, it says who are the owner etc).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, absolutely. Gepmetry Guy's comments are excellent. Attributing the figures to the source right away within the text should be there. If needed, we can attribute to two sources, one BOI, and the other this numbers website or boxofficemojo (which has slightly different figures probably because of changed span of time after release).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New message

Shahid have a look at the message at the bottom of my talk page. I have no idea what it is? Somebody wants to elect me for the board of members of the Wikimedia Foundation? ?? See User:Ubuibiok?? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Shahid if you are interested have a look at the woman on the far right of this picture Image:Khmer cambodian people.JPG. Isn't she beautiful? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Zinta

Girolamo makes a few good points regarding the information about the sourcing. If less-detailed information regarding the success of the films can be found elsewhere, it might be a good idea to just go with that, until and unless there are other published sources. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He's basically saying that he can't be sure it is, and that the burden of proof regarding any source is the person who wants to add that content, which makes sense. If there are other print sources out there, and there might be, that are clearly reliable, they would be acceptable, but he's indicating that there hasn't been evidence necessarily put forward that this informtion meets our specific guidelines. Giro also knows this stuff very well, so I think I'd basically either try to find other sources or use the information that's already in other sources which aren't potentially arguable as unreliable. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, it's the source for notes 16, 20, 28, and 38, with a total of 6 citations. About all it really does is provide the information on the revenues. I think it would probably be possible to just say "the film was successful" based on some other source in the interim. Whatever information can be gotten from the other sites regarding commercial succes would be enough to establish information. But all it really does support is the earning figures, which really aren't that particularly relevant. The awards and other information on her would be enough to indicate that she is among the most popular actresses in the field. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you will be obligated to demonstrate the source's reliability to the satisfaction of everyone. Frankly, I don't think that's going to happen without a lot of work, and I don't think that the FA will necessarily be held that long. What I would do in this situation is alter the content relative to the earnings to reflect what you can prove from other sources, and get the article at FA. Then, later, when time pressures are lessened, you would be able to fight a bit more concertedly for the source. But right now I think the major issue is the FAC, as that's the one that in effect has a clock ticking on it. We don't need to know how successful the films were monetarily to know she's popular, that's demonstrated well enough elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where you're getting the impression that 300 wikipedia articles would be destroyed. Shahrukh Khan would still exist, only the earnings figures would be taken out. The same holds for Saif Ali Khan, Akshay Kumar, and most if not all of the other articles that cite that source. All that would be lost would be the generally less important box office revenue data in most cases. Even there, all that would necessarily happen would be the removal of the source and a {{citation needed}} tag added. Few if any of those articles are anything close to the quality of the Zinta article, so few if any would lose GA or FA status. I also seriously doubt any articles would be deleted on the lack of its being a reliable source. If any were, I as an admin could undelete them later if alternate sourcing could be found. I think you are conceivably overreacting to the issue, which is really only about the revenue information. Of all the things that are important about Zinta, the revenues may well be the least important. And, again, I think that other sources in print probably do exist, which could verify that data.

For all the effort you have put into this article, it would really be unfortunate if it were to lose its chance at FA, and inclusion on the main page, because of what might be unusual concern about information regarding the box office revenues of her movies. It might also prove to be a disincentive to anyone else ever attempting to get an Indian cinema article up to GA or FA, given that you would, in effect, be giving up on FA after all the work you had done. And there wouldn't necessarily be an "concession", either. If other sources which do cite that source can be found, and Girolamo and the other film project members find them, then the source would be found reliable later. And, frankly, now that the issue's been raised there, I think that there may well be an effort to prove the source reliable, particularly if there is an FA to point to. If there continues to be no Indian cinema FA, then there is a real chance that no such effort will ever be made, as many/most editors will give up on trying to make one because of this failure. And I think that would be even sadder than an argument about this particular source is. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

what I find very strange is that there are no "reliable" websites which give statistics on Indian films. Particularly as they are modern films and many of them blockbusters with international success. Where appropriate I'm certain it would be possible to obtain statistics from general reliable film websites or newspapers (which evne Sravagnya thinks is acceptable) to references figures on the films. E.g KANK. Is BOI likely to be the only source that displays the earnings of the film. I think not. But i have to agree that there seems to be a great deal of bias against Indian sources. Given that the Zinta article is about an actress are all of the film earnings all that essential anyway?? Could one or two be removed and the others replaced with different sources as Giro and JOhn have suggested. Would it really tarnish the Zinta article that much. I have to say I agree with them on this. It would be shame to not see the article promoted because of this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do find it very strange also, trust me. I was always under the impression it was the official website for Indian film statistics and was the Indian Box Office so to speak. This doesn't appear to be the case but I have tried googling for other sources and ALL of the others I've found have been in blogs which are certianly far worse sources. If it was a crappy blog I doubt it would have been used in those mainstream examples. But my feeling is something could be done very easily to sort this. But it makes life very difficult questioning this website. What we can do is just for a trial see if we can replace BOI just in the Zinta article. As it is there are only very few anyway. I've just found one form rediff which I'll replace one with now (this page also discusses the film). As for it affecting 300 other articles that can be discussed in an ongoing situation. I am certain we can work it out friend ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Nobody is saying anything about conceding or giving in to anybody. I think a source like rediiff which also discussed the Jann-E Maan flop compared to the other film supports the argument even more strongly ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC) There two references left, not exactly a huge problem is it. Rediff mentions some statistics and also reports that a film was amajor success in India but a flop in the U.S. I'll leave it up to you asto whether you think this is useful or not ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Shahid please be patient. I was in the muiddle of adding this for starters. You seem to have lost your're trust in me as an editor ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anywthing better for that particular one though. Of course I'm not siding with Sarvagnya. I am trying to act maturely and professionally to avoid so much fuss and rejection over something so small. 13:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Remember I tried to contact over several months but nobody replied to me thats what concerned me. The site does cplaim to be the largest film statistic site which I believe is true but what concerns me is that they don't display anything at all on how they were compiled and by whom and never replied to questions over this despite contacting them three times. I actually agree with you that it should be fine as a source. I just want to rid of any doubts and anybody picking holes in the article. I don't ever expect to satisfy Sarvagnya, but I feel I help the situation. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You have? That's great if so. I just find it so unnecessary in participating in "Wiki Battles" with other editors. Now I full agree that Sarvangya needs to learn a thing or two on here but it is such a waste of time arguing over seomthing but thousands of articles out there actually do have serious POV and reference problems. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right do what you like. I've done my very best to try to help and fix the situation so everybody is happy. You're forgetting those who fully support you and are your friends around here, ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you were more willing to speak to me via email we could discuss things more privately without that concern ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shshshsh, ShakespearesZombie has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I still remain firm that BOI is a reliable source as I;ve always said. I just want everything cleared up and sorted out so even those who have doubts can be silenced, and mos tof all see the article pass FA and see you rewarded for your much deserved dedication and efforts to achieve it. I won't bother you personally again if this is how you feel about me trying to help you ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sent you an email mate. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the email? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks you have another, one is just playing but the other is of note but it is to be kept between you and me ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC) LOL. I've left you another but it is private. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC) What you could do is expand the info on Zinta's role in Kal Ho Naa Ho. Particularly as it is significant could you fill in the background to the character? This would also give a stronger vlaim to using the image also. I' think that readers may want to know more about the character she played in the article, particularly as she won her first Filmfare Best Actress Award for it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that just shows exactly that however much people try to put things right he will ALWAYS find something else to oppose it. If the article was dead perfect you would never get him to support it so its just a waste of time trying to work with him. It is now extremely clear more than ever what his intentions are. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Responded ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I can have a go at altering the tearful Zinta image if you like ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Thats what I thought you'd say. You can't change an image like that without it affecting the pix ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC) The best I can do is Image:Zintatear.jpg. This looks a lot better I think personally but I'll leave it up to you to decide ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I tried cropping a bit more off the left to make the image a bit squarer but it looks better as it is. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me link ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I'm certain if you moved it to a more appropriate section he wouldn't complain. As long as nobody's comments are deleted it shouldn't matter ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Have you read my latest post there? I've mentioned something about the intergrity of the website also ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC) You have an email from Big Bill ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC) My God Shahid. WOW! I am awestruck by how quickly you responded!! I bow my bald head down to you for your stength of character and determination. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is the case then it is quite clear why the number of FAs we have is so extremely low. Its not a real fault with editors who are willing to develop articles to a high standard. The problem lies in that there seems to be a growing belief that the article must be perfect. Well perfection just doesn't exist however much people strive for it. The FA process has become ridiculously tedious. I'm very proud of the way you stick with it but I think it is a huge task to achieve to make everybody satisfied with it. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Shahid please reconsider throwing in the towel. I don't blame you in the slightest but it has come so far, it would take ages to renominate it again. You are convinced it won't pass? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I know, I know buddy I'm not surprised. It does my head in even spending ten minutes discussing sources to make other editors happy but to spent hours, days, weeks, months trying to address it like you do and then be faced by another oppose and 15 problems it is very tough to say the least. I genuinely think it is nearly there if Tony could post some more comments and we sort out those small problems, but as I say these days the standard expected for an FA has gone beyond a joke. It may be best to address those problems and then wipe the slate clean and repropose it again in a week or two. If you don't and give up on it, then I am certain I or somebody else will keep renominating it until it gets to where it deserves to be. Forgive the analogy but Imagine the article has travelled from Melbourne and had just flown into Cardiff International Airport having travelled thousands of miles in the process. All its waiting to do is catch a taxi to my house in Barry which is four miles away and the journey will be completed. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata's sources on the RSN indicate that there might be some basis for thinking the BOI will be considered to qualify as reliable. At this point, I think it might make sense to propose a break from active consideration of the proposal pending the discussion there, as I don't think anything will necessarily be accomplished until then anyway. I can't know how often this sort of thing happens, but that might be the standard procedure in cases like this anyway. A "hold" on the nomination might be in order, but I think it might be premature to withdraw it. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know that Girolamo has acknowledged the source seems to qualify as reliable here. The other objections about the matter will probably carry about as much weight as those parties' previous objections have. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What reversions are we talking about here? John Carter (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about Girolamo's reversions, which made a degree of sense as long as the source was disputed, they're finished, with his recognizing the source is reliable. Now, I imagine that there is still a chance that, ahem, someone else might still object, but I haven't seen any edits from that person recently to that page, and I think that person's previous conduct will be taken into account as well. At this point, honestly, if you want to, feel free to reinsert the BOI sources, as it looks like Girolamo, who is generally thought very creditable in these matters, has said that the source qualifies as reliable. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Girolamo's last statement of "conceding the point" at the reliable sources noticeboard seems to me to indicate that the source is reliable in his eyes. It'll be nice to hear him say that explicitly, but that's the obvious meaning of his statement. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's saying that he won't argue that it isn't. Not quite the same as saying that he thinks it is, but close enough for our purposes, as it means he won't contest the inclusion of the source in the article. Others might, of course, but I think Girolamo's word carries more weight than a lot of people, mine included, and even more so than those "others". John Carter (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I was only trying to refer to the fact that Girolamo's knowledge of the subject is such that many people will know his statements have a good deal of experience and knowledge of the subject behind him. Relata seems to know his/her way around the material as well, a lot better than I do. Regarding "others", the opinion of them I think will likely not be changed by any of their statements in the future. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfc - Sarvagnya

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Sarvagnya (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya. If you are involved in the dispute, you may certify the basis for the dispute if you wish. -- Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

India Quiz

Hi, it is your turn to ask the next question, as your answer to the last one was correct. GDibyendu (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! what a coincidence! BTW, I used 'director's daughter who is an actress' as the main clue. Then I know that she got National award for Daman and Shabana got it 5 times. What I forgot is that Ek Pal was Kalpana Lazmi's film and did not know much about 'Rahi Badal Gaye', but found all info pretty soon. GDibyendu (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Betaab.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Betaab.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: finally=

I could not access most of the examples Relata cited. However, one of the examples, I could access, and it names ibosnetwork, planetbollywood, bollyvista!! (See page number 12)

Anyway, the point is that Giro has conceded. So, it's on its way.... :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan

in the interview on YouTube, he said with his own mouth that his mum was in ICU at Batra Hospital in Delhi. Is SRK's mouth not a reliable source? Tri400 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I see we have gone back to the bridge (again) despite much effort to try to alter your desired image. I wonder how long it will be before a bot drills me an orphaned image. If you don't want that particular image I would have preferred you to tell me and I would have speedied it. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For my favourite bridge enthusiast LOL

Oh OK but I thought it was a great image and I thought you liked it too. Independently of what Black Kite says I thought the image demonstrated her as an actress far better than the existing one. I thought perhaps you had become attatched to the bridge LOL. Restore the Shania message if you liked it, I thought it might jade my reputation as an evil bald guy if he is found to be a romantic lol. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL I'm just playing with ya. The image isn't important really. (Yes I've been to NY twice its fantastic) Oh I've just been watching Shania on youtube, watch this. She is just so crazily beautiful ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WOw thats dramatic stuff. I love the soundtrack to that film. That scene is particularly important for the film I agree so its very relevant. I see that youtube has the entire film in segments. I'll try and watch the film in the next day or two. I bet you didn't check out Shania ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When you have a moment could you find me a list of Bollywood films to see that have the full or detailed content on youtube. They may be modern ones like so or oldies ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Society of the Song Dynasty the best article you;ve ever seen or what. It is incredible ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Song Synasty series is the best set of articles I've ever encountered during my time on here and I seen a heck of a lot of articles. They really are mint. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. I felt quite depressed last night as I haven't had the chance to write articles of quite that magnitude and that depth. It requires so much study, work and thought on a single period in history. These are exactly the sort of articles I want to see all across wikipedia -I prefer more detailed flourishing articles like this and the 30kb limit is far too small I think. What I'd be happy doing is getting books from the library and having a go at writing articles like that sometime. But so much time needs doing at stub level and building content and trying to get all over wikipedia and improve it I aren't able to sit down and concentrate on one article which is a shame but wikipedia is still improving anyway. I had considered getting some books out on Metternich or the 1848 revolution in Europe before -as I studied this for my History special level. Of course our goal eventually is to have at least 10 million articles of this quality. The key to it is research and obtaining books.

With Amitabh for instance imagine what could be done if somebody got hold of this book. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. So far I've seen very little evidence of any real flaws in it, it just seems that many editors are clearly disinterested in it. If Sandy or Raul believed it didn't display some sort of FA quality they would have closed it long before now. It isn't a vote, but all these opposes by people who have no idea how much work has gone into the articke is a bitch. I'm not sure whether it will pass this time either as Raul wouldn't be happy promoting something which a number of people seem to object to. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I love Cannes. so glamorous. I love all those yachts and the summer clothes white posh shirts/linen suits and summer dresses the actors and actresses seem to wear, its very James Bond really isn't it. Undoubtedly one of the most glamorous events in the world film calendar.That was where I first heard of Aishwarya Rai and on seeing her at the time I thought she was possibly the most stunning actress I had ever seen. Hey I'm on a role today. I must have added infoboxes and maps to over 200 articles by now. Have a look at Limbe etc. The infobox and images really make a difference. Basically I want to see 400,000 african geo articles like Agnam-Goly. Wouldn't that be awesome!! Its dreadfully underdeveloped in places. I'm doing the best I can to address a whole continent!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the case baby. If there was an article I would write to an FA it would be the Dalai Lama as it is very special to me. Have a look at the progress since earlier on Dalai Lama. If I could get a few books guaranteed I would try to write it up to Song Dynasty detail! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject films peer review of Pather Panchali

Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article is at the WikiProject Films' peer review section here. Please provide inputs. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood films of 2008

Whats the matter with having referenced information on the release dates of up and coming films?. I would have thought that pretty important for releases. I didn't think you were particularly interested in the lists. The reason why we decided against having a release date extra column for all of the world lists was because it would look too cluttered, not because the information was irrevelant. I would suggest giving them a chance, and if they can't reference it reliably then revert them. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Boo!!

HI! How you been?? Been a long time since we chatted. How's everything going with the editing? I've been sooooooooooo busy with uni, but I've got some spare time on hand - for now anyways! How has the Preity Zinta article done? I haven't been on for ages, so I'm hoping to catch up with everything. Hope your well and I look forward to hearing from you. Though it's long overdue: Happy New Year and Happy Holi. Kind regards and best wishes. It's kinda wierd really, this is my first edit on Wikipedia for 2008! -- Pa7 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL!! I missed you to Shahid!! It's brilliant to hear from you! Im not back completely, but I've got some spare time till the end of the month (give or take some). Firstly, thanks very much for sorting out the fair use rationales for the images I uploaded. I had a look at the edit history and saw that you sorted them out, thanks a lot! Secondly, what happened to all those brilliant images uploaded by Blof?? Thirdly, how's the Zinta article going? I had a quick look and it totally should have got the FA by now!! Although I'm really glad that you've included some really good info such as the IPL. What else have you been working on? Has there been any new developments? Fantastic, to hear from you again. :-) -- Pa7 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear from her isn't it. Are you not talking to me because I was completely honest with you and that the Zinta article has twice as many references as the FA Emma Watson? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to tread on your toes with that one. The thing is I agree with you mostly, I want the lists to be consistent and if somebody starts adding release dates to 2008 they'll start doing it to the others and before you know it all of the other lists will be plagued with unreferenced dates and the works. I do see their point though about release dates for films which are unreleased which would seem useful in exceptional circumstances in that they are being awaited. Really with Indian film I had intended the last column to be for the Playback singers/composers of the films -music is particularly important for Bollywood especially I think (when FA requirements return to a normal level again I would love to see Asha Bhosle with an FA. Now even most British people think of her as Asian icon, I certainly do). I would fully support you if they add unsourced dates. Other than this I would suggest a special section underneath for up and commuing film release dates -this way it doesn't mess up the table. Saludos ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Shahid! Well, I'm gonna try and come on more often, but by the beginning of June, I'm gonna be busy with exams. University is fine but it's got to a point where all I wanna do is scream my head off or blow off some steam!! I know what you mean, all the old editors are inactive. Like you said Zora, Plum and yes our dear friend Shez! I'm glad the Mukerji article is improving, I'm sure the latter would be pleased! Well, when they come back Im sure they'll be impressed. I actually read the FAC for Preity Zinta, to me the problem seems the reliability of some websites such as boxofficeindia.com. To me, this is the most reliable for box office figures. Also, I had a look at other FA articles and I totally think that the Zinta article is much better!! Then there was the issue over the images but like you said thanks to BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ that's been sorted. How about you, are you studying or working? Hope your well. -- Pa7 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Long time

Hey Shahid, long time friend!! It has almost been a month since I last talked to you. How's it going?? Over the past several weeks, I felt like you didn't want to talk with me. :- ( Anyways, I just wanted to tell you some good news. The Preity Zinta images that you asked me to upload onto Wikimedia Commons have been licenced though they did take forever to do so. You can now use them on Zinta's article if you want to. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 01:24, 21 May 2008

I restored the images is this OK? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Howz this for a classic quote. "You are not the typical Wikipedian nowadays: spends most of their time reverting vandalism and making 5,000 edits to AIV and AFD, 200% edit summary usage, and very little encyclopedia building in order to grab some admin tools and fluff their way through RFA". Is this a fantastic observation or what? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The great thing is, is that it was said at an actual RFA by User:Editor of the Wiki. Most of the admin requests are editors who have put in a whopping 2000 edits in ANI, council discussions or AFD and 50 edits to the mainspace. ALthough User:Fritz doesn't have a high edit count he has technical abilities which would make certain admin tools useful to him. He is different to the glory seekers. For many wikipedia is a bureacracy; what fun is there is that?? Editing the articles is fun, who wants to live their life in a law court and be miserable and uptight hey! It does amaze me why many editors rarely edit the "goods" so to speak. How are you anyway Mr. Shahid? Are you well? Do you have any more wonderful pictures of Indian actresses in beautiful green dresses to show me? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP! Have you seen America's got talent. An 11 year old girl. Its scary, its almost like the soul of a 50 year old black singer is inside her and singing out of her body. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision? I think its next week. I don't think UK are in it this year they did so poor last year!!! I;ve never taken Eurovision very seriously, its very camp! and the way the votes are distributed for political reasons has always been a good one! In regards to the Zinta article I am certain Raul thinks that the article could somehow be made an FA, otherwise it still wouldn't be in the running. Evne if it doesn't pass because of Giro's concerns, you know it came within a whisker. Anyway if its fails, hopefully it can be worked out and then reproposed with a few weeks. It is disappointing how long its taking I'll be the first to admit, but I think you are doing awesome. I have rarely ever seen anybody put so much work into something and not get something out of it in the end, so I remain firm in my belief that you will be rewarded eventually. Best of luck!. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"SUPPORT - Despite my continuing unresolved quibble, the article is fantastic. It continues to evolve toward a higher level of quality and refinement". If Tony says the article is fantastic I have very high hopes. I've never seen him say that before. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)