Jump to content

Talk:The Dirty Picture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Dirty Picture has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
February 10, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
March 29, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
[edit]

Are so many external links really necessary?? Only official links are needed to be there.ASHUIND 12:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think some of the reviews can be removed. 120.62.3.15 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

hey someone just elaborated the plot. it was good to read and i can imagine the whole movie now. thanks to the editor but i think it needs a review and some corrections. --Msrag (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but the user Karthikndr has reverted it back. Yes I agree the plot was too lengthy but it made it interesting to read. Moreover the current plot has terrible factual errors with the story. It simply talks nonsense about the story. I suggest we put up the same plot again and lets editors modify it and make it short.Can we please discuss it over here.--110.76.160.100 (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i suggest you leave a message at Karthikndr talk page and request him to please discuss it here before you get into an edit war.--Msrag (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I m here, and won't mind discusing here. Even i liked the plot and appreciate your contribution. Plot was too lengthy hence i reverted it. If you change the plot with a smaller version, I wont mind keeping it. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I am sorry. I was busy writing on your talk page and dint notice your post already here. Thank you too you liked my post but the idea here was to include all those circumstances in the movie which leads to another in Silk's life and thereby potraying the ups and downs of her life and career. The current plot is very vague and does not give the liberty to the reader to imagine the story as it is going. The film portrays all situations and circumstances either big or small in Silk's life in a very beautifully manner and thus I was trying to give justice to the original story of the movie. I am an avid writer and I believe in loves expanding articles rather than making it compact. I remember most of Sharukh Khan's movies have a good detailed plot including Dilwale Dulhania, RNBDJ and so on. Please suggest.--110.76.160.100 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good research work. I went through all your given links, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge and Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi seems to be long, but the plot you added was still longer than those. The link will help you to write the section. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips. Went through it and reworked on the plot as well. Please see now. It looks quite compact wrt to the previous one.--110.76.160.100 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was the one who elaborated the plot. I agree it had to be edited because it was long, but the person who reverted/edited it added a lot of factual errors and grammatical errors back to it. I have retained the shorter version now, and removed the grammatical errors and factual errors. Also, there are a lot of unnecessary adjectives being added, and "descriptions", that are not relevant (eg. she gained male fans who were drooling over her, etc). Factual errors include 1. she went looking for a role as a side dancer. This is WRONG. she went looking for a role as an actress but took up the role of a side dancer spontaneously later. Please make sure these errors don't creep in and retain what I have left it at. 120.62.3.15 (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adjectives and Descriptions make a reading more interesting. That is why it is called a 'adjective' which enhances a 'noun'. They add more to the story. They make a story look good & feel good. For eg., Will it be wrong to say 'ABC (actor MNO) dated his beautiful and sexy wife XYZ (actress JKL)'? No since 'beautiful and sexy' are mere adjectives which helps reader in visualizing the story more effectively. For grammatical mistakes, you are most welcome to edit and contribute to Wiki. But your sentences such as "Ganesh later meets Reshma and offers her a song in his upcoming film, and suggests that she should now be referred to as "Silk"" contains two 'ands' which does not sound good to read and can be avoided. Another sentence where you have used two ands "She approaches Selva Ganesh to produce a film which turns out to be a disaster, and she loses all her wealth and fame." Can you please explain me whats wrong in the sentence "Ganesh later meets Reshma, offering her a song in his upcoming film, and suggests that she should now be referred to as "Silk"", and also the sentence "She approaches Selva Ganesh to produce a film which turns out to be a disaster eventually losing all her wealth and fame." Also pls explain me whats wrong in combining two or more sentence as in here "At the first shoot, “Silk” is spellbound and nervous to dance with Suryakanth (Naseeruddin Shah), her childhood idol, resulting the shoot being unsuccessful and the arrogant Suryakanth being disappointed." You might want to refer this article. Try reading your sentence again "Silk, however, is determined and confident that films are all about entertainment and that she's here to give that". Here you have used 'that' twice and could have been avoided. Coming to factual errors, its clearly told in the movie that she never wanted to be an actress but a dancer. In one scene shes seen talking to her mother that she is given some dialogues for a scene and she is very uncomfortable with it as she wants to be a dancer. The scene where the casting director rejects her also depicts clearly that she was standing in the queue with other dancers and all of them were selected but only she was rejected. I am sure that queue was definitely not for the role of an actress in the movie. This can be an endless debate as its not always necessary that any two persons can have the same opinion about a thing. Moreover as said above, in most of your edits I see you like to use 'and' more often than any other conjunctions and of course not 'adjectives' and 'verbs'. I would suggest you to please stop being so fussy about such small things you feel are correct. I am sure you dont want to get into detail discussing and proving each and every word you edited is right or wrong.--Msrag (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I haven't seen the film, and I'm grammatically very week. But I do agree with Msrag. Remember 120.62.3.15, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and not of your own. While editing an article, Wikipedia clearly notify's you that, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it," just saying if you haven't noticed yet. -- Karthik Nadar 07:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see, Karthik, that you are grammatically "week", but this is an encyclopedia and adjectives and descriptions are not supposed to be added to make the reading "interesting" from your own subjective point of view. You need to stick to the facts. Using "that" twice in a sentence does not make it sound incorrect - words are often used twice in a sentence when required. This is not a forum to discuss whether the sentences sound "good" or "bad" or "pretty" or "ugly". And who said you can't use "and" twice in a sentence? It gives the sentence better flow than to keep piling it with comma-breaking phrases, making it a tedious read. I'm not going to get into English or creative writing lessons here, but I'm more concerned about the incorrect/wrong facts and grammatical errors that you are adding onto the plot section. It is clearly evident in the story that she went to get a role as an actress and not as a side dancer. Moreover, there is no instance when the journalist Naila degrades her for sleeping with both brothers in order to get opportunities in films - this is your own imagination. The only thing that is shown in the film is bad press for her when she has an affair with Ramakanth, and is labeled as Draupadi. You are making stuff up. Please watch the movie again carefully. Also, you don't need to use words like "fortunately" (!) to describe events in the story line (like Abraham's film success). If there are more such absurd inconsistencies in the article, I will change and correct them. Please stick to Wikipedia's style guide, do not add things that have been spearheaded by your imagination, and do not inflect your opinion into the plot narration about whether an event was fortunate or unfortunate. 120.62.13.149 (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit plot section, neither i will consider doing it further. The only thing i did for this article in the plot section was reverting to a shorter section when the plot was too too long. So please don't argue with me on this issue. I had just mentioned the terms and conditions of Wikipedia and again say the same. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you are not an editor alone. Secondly, I do request you to consider creating an account for yourself. -- Karthik Nadar 11:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the guideline in WP:FILMPLOT, a plot summary should be 400 - 700 words. BollyJeff || talk 20:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karthik, I agree with you about the length issue, and I wasn't just addressing you about the problems of the plot - I was talking to everyone who is on this talk page currently. Honestly, I don't know who edited it and it's not important. I do acknowledge I'm not the only editor here, and I never claimed to be through any of my verbal or editing actions. I even retained the shorter version which it was reverted to after my edit. I am only referring to certain stylistic issues. It's really not encyclopedic to write the plot like you're narrating it to a friend - only facts have to be stated in the plot because Wikipedia is meant to serve a documentary purpose. Also, let's be careful about the factual stuff. As for creating an account, yes, I will be doing so soon. 120.62.1.131 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever edited it finally, it looks good right now. I still feel a few things need to be tweaked, improved. 120.62.1.131 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Msrag, there are some problems with your edit.
1. Side dancer. She does not go looking for a role as a side dancer, but as an actor, and takes up the side dancer's role spontaneously, later. This is incorrect and I have edited it.
2. Abraham does not "confess any love" for her the night they talk - this is an exaggeration.
3. Please remove the use of words like 'fortunately'. It is not our place to decide what event is fortunate/unfortunate in a fictional story being documented on Wikipedia.
4. "Unhappy about losing her stardom and bored with the mediocrity, she loses interest in her work..." - she has not lost her stardom at this point yet. Just "bored with the mediocrity" suffices to convey the point.
5. Some phrases, words have are getting repetitive. "Wearing revealing clothes" occurs twice, "dancing to erotic dance movements" has the word dance in it twice. I've edited these things.
Please look at the editing and the facts carefully before reverting anything again. 120.62.1.131 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Firstly, whoever you are, I am sure that you don't understand Hindi films at all. "Dirty picture" might be one among the few handful Bollywood movies that you've seen. Confessing Love doesn't always necessarily means a guy confessing his love to a woman be only by uttering those three words "I Love You". May be you watch a lot of South Indian movies and you were expecting the same over here as it happens in South cinema. But this is Bollywood dear, where confession of love happens even just from eyes too which you fail to understand. Just like in Hollywood, confession of love can be done by mere hugging, kissing or even smiling. Its the viewers who gotto understand and need not be explained as like in a classroom. In the movie, Silk finds all her photographs put up on the wall by Abraham the next morning and a note by him saying "HE is not drunk anymore and HE still likes him" contrary to what he said the previous night that "Girls like Silk are only liked by someone when they are drunk". Do you still get this my friend, if not I don't care. I'm not here to explain you film.
2. Can you explain me what exactly is losing stardom? How do you measure losing stardom? What are the factors that define losing stardom? Silk loses films from Suryakanth. Even small time film makers makes hurls and abuses to Silk. In reply she is shown angry, frustrated and bursting out at them. If you don't understand this as losing stardom, well I suggest you to please refrain yourself from editing Wiki Articles especially the Plot sections.
3. I don't care if you've changed few words here and there, as long as it makes your day and you sleep well in night. If you could make out I've actually retained a lot of phrases and sentences that you edited because that's hardly of any importance as to who edits what as long as its correct and define the same meaning. I'm only concerned about the factual errors you committed in the plot.
4. You have made some unnecessary changes for words like 'Realize'. If you are not aware of it, let me tell you both the words 'Realize' and 'Realise' are actually correct in terms of English. Only difference in them being that 'Realise' is British and 'Realize' is American spelling. As warned earlier by other editors, am saying it again "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Do not make such unnecessary changes again just because you like it that way.
5. I see that you got a new IP address every time you make an edit. You better consider creating an account for yourself or else you might be blocked for editing accusing you of being a Sock-Puppet.--Msrag (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This film is about the life of a prostitute. The fate of promiscuous women is unpleasant in the end.-59.95.13.131 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing

[edit]

Vidya also made an apperance on Kaun Banega Crorepati on November 10, 2011 episode to promote the film. She won Rs 640,000 which she said will be donated to a charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saneguy (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

provide source and it'll be added--Msrag (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nylon Nalini and Disco Shanthi

[edit]

I see that someone has removed Nylon Nalini and retained Disco Shanti in reference to the theme. What do they mean by that Nylon Nalini was not a real person but Disco Shanti was? These are both screen names of women who played out their roles and characters. None of these names were of "real persons"; Silk's wasn't either. There was also Polyester Padmini. The reference that has been tagged with this statement clearly has director Milan Luthria mentioning the name of Nylon Nalini as one of Silk's contemporaries who inspired the film. 120.62.20.87 (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Dirty Picture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Prose
  • Needs a small copy edit. You may request at the guild.
  • "In UAE, on Thursday alone, the film made 3.2 lakh Dirhams". Give the INR and dollar equivalent of "Dirhams"
  • One line paras like this must be avoided.
  • The film was banned on Pakistan owing to certain bold scenes, however was later release post a week on 10 December 2011.
  • Hyphens must be converted to either em dashes or en dashes.
  • WP:OVERLINKING
  • This is the major problem with the prose part. The names of "Vidya Balan", "Milan Luthria", "Emraan Hashmi", etc., are linked heavily in "Development", "Casting" and "Promotions" sections. Same for the box-office section. Also check for other words.


References

There are a lot of problems with the formatting of references:

  • Printed media should be italicized.Remove ('') from the "publisher" parameters, cause sdding that will remove italics.
  • The publisher for "Hindustan Times" is "HT Media Ltd"
  • Reference #73 doesn't work. Try finding an archive using the Way Back Machine or replace it with another good source.
  • As per MOS:DATEUNIFY, date format in citations needs to be maintained consistently.
  • Ref #65, #66 use bare URLs
  • There are mismatches in the use of "cite news" and "cite web" templates. For eg., you use "cite news" for "bollywoodhungama" and "cite web" template for "Times of India" and "starboxoffice.com" is not a news source.
  • Check the "work" parameter of ref #43
  • "bollywoodlife.com", "gomolo" and "BollySpice" doesn't seem reliable for me.
  • You have linked "bollywoodhungama" in all your ref except ref #36. Either link all or just the first alone.
  • Use First name & Last name for authors. None of your ref follow that.
  • Most of the references are incomplete. Fill all the missing parameters wherever required.

The article looks good except for the ref formatting. Try fixing all these issues with in the seven-day period. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have made the necessary changes. Sorry for the delay. smaro! 05:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarojit (talk • contribs)

Lions Gold awards and BIG star awards need sources. X.One SOS 08:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the format of the table, but still it seems like I removed some info. Please let me know if I indeed did. X.One SOS 08:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Dirty Picture/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Why are you giving a GA review to an already failed article? just so you can give it fail again? wasn't it possible for you to continue with the original review? plus it's failed anyway? --Meryam90 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was renominated after it was failed on January 9. It was listed on the GAN page. I started the review. Clicking "Review" generated a new GA2 page. If you look at the article history on talk, you will see what happened. The "Talk:The Dirty Picture/GA2" can only be created by clicking the link to review the article. Once it is opened (and I didn't know it had just been failed and renominated) it can only be passed or failed. Please read the directions on the GAN page. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Dirty_Picture&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinebasti.com%2Fmovie%2FThe-Dirty-Picture%2F2945%2Fstory&minwords=3&minchars=13&removequotations=&removenumbers=

This article needs to be examined for copyvio. My browser freezes on many of the citations, so I am unable to check it thoroughly. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no copyright issues with this article. I have nominated the article for a GA Review again. Please do not withdraw it without appropriate reasons. smaro! 05:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

This was listed for copyright review at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 February 10.

While content may not have been copied from that website, there are some issues with material following closely. For instance, this source says:

While Vidya Balan definitely knew that she had to go extra glam to play Silk Smitha in Milan Luthria's Dirty Picture produced by Ekta Kapoor, Balan sort of freaked out when she saw the sketches of what she needs to wear for the portrayal.

Hot pants, low necks and petticoats (without the saree that Vidya is so fond of) got a bit too hot to handle for the lady. Also, she would have to wear these outrageous outfits after she gains some extra kilos on her thighs and other areas that the role requires, which left the actress gob smacked.

Content placed in the article in this edit:

When Vidya Balan was narrated the script and shown sketches of what she needed to wear for the portrayal, she completely freaked out. Hot pants, low necks and petticoats (without the saree that Vidya is so fond of) got a bit too hot to handle for her. Also, she would have to wear these outrageous outfits gaining some extra kilos on her thighs and other areas which left the actress gob smacked.

To make duplication easier to see, I've bolded the content that follows language exactly, although some of it has been moved around. Other content is only minimally changed.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. (See Wikipedia:Copy-paste.) The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

I've removed some lingering close paraphrasing of that source and will look at some of the other material to see if it also follows too closely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version I reviewed (above) and the sections I labeled copyvio[1] were word-for-word copied from this site.[2] Comparing versions, I don't see that the editor has addressed the issue. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the difficulties of finding copyright issues in articles related to India is that content is frequently copied in multiple directions. :) In this case, the editor seems correct that this is a reverse copy. Here's how we know.
This content is in the external source:

When Vidya Balan was narrated the script and shown sketches of what she needed to wear for the portrayal, including hot pants, low necks and petticoats (without the saree that Vidya so often wears), she was uncomfortable. Kapoor has repeatedly stated in the media that Vidya was perfect to portray the complex character of Smitha. She added, "She has such a range of acting... her expressions are well controlled... We couldn't have found anyone better than Vidya for this role. It's a casting that very few would think is viable because it is going to be nothing like Vidya has done before. But I am confident she will push the envelope as far as she can".

The first sentence was added in different form in this edit:

When Vidya Balan was narrated the script and shown sketches of what she needed to wear for the portrayal, she completely freaked out. Hot pants, low necks and petticoats (without the saree that Vidya is so fond of) got a bit too hot to handle for her.

They are similar, but not the same. We can see that it was changed later by a different editor:

When Vidya Balan was narrated the script and shown sketches of what she needed to wear for the portrayal, including hot pants, low necks and petticoats (without the saree that Vidya so often wears), she was uncomfortable.

We note that as of this edit, the next lines are missing. They were added much later and after many edits here.
When content evolves gradually like this on Wikipedia, we have a very strong likelihood that copying is backwards, and I think it is in this case.
I've done a pretty thorough spot check of the article with some close evaluation of a few sources, and I haven't found any additional problems. Generally, paraphrase seems to be very well done. I think at this point that the one issue I found may have been anomalous. But since it did exist, I would encourage editors to the article to be careful in making sure that content is completely rewritten before it is placed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, sorry for the error. Times of India is a site that I can't access because it freezes my browser, as were several citations in this article. So I can't really check most of the individual links. But your logic is interesting and I'll try to make use of it. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's important to bring up even suspected cases of copying for evaluation. It's great when it turns out that it wasn't us. :) But it's worth looking at. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Dirty Picture/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll review this article, as I'm happy to see that the links have been fixed.


I have removed the dead link. Thanks. :) Smarojit (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
review

(This article has some very strange wording in it. Is it a translation or something? I have copy edited some of it but I'm unsure if I am interpreting the meaning correctly.)

lede
  • "the hero of the film" - needs citation
  • "The film's music, composed by Vishal Shekhar with lyrics by Rajat Aroraa, was popular." - needs better word than "popular" - popular by what standards?
plot
  • "where her mother disconnects with Silk forever" - what does "disconnects" mean? - disowned
  • "degrade" - I don't think this is the word you want - I have changed it in several places
  • " on the same lines" - what lines?
Cast
  • "libelous"? - what is meant here?
  • "enjoys the flesh of women" encyclopedic wording?

(I will continue - the article needs a copy edit.)

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made
lead
  • Provided a citation for "the hero of the film"
  • Removed the use of "popular"
plot
  • Copy edited the plot
Cast
  • Used scandalous instead of libelous.
Smarojit (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
review continued
  • "enjoys the flesh of women" - doesn't seem like encyclopedic wording
  • "Additionally, all actors, including Balan and Shah attended workshops for almost two months before filming could begin." why? what were the workshops about?
  • "met-at-a-party stories, quick tea-break chats," - doesn't seem like encyclopedic language

(will continue) MathewTownsend (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made the above changes. Smarojit (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for the changes. The wording is still a little odd in places but I attribute that to cultural differences. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! Good job on an interesting film! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images included in the article

[edit]

A discussion regarding the images included in the Cast section of this article is going on at Wikipedia_talk:INCINE#Images_in_the_film_articles. Please give you views there. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tusshar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Tusshar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tusshar.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on The Dirty Picture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on The Dirty Picture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Dirty Picture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Dirty Picture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dirty_Picture&oldid=1210674783"