User talk:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ/Archive 7

New topic

Hi. I've asked a few editors I;ve worked with before who I know are good copy editors to give it a bit of a spick and span. Its good to get some fresh eyes on it. I've also requested that they comment at the peer review. OK? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely will, although as you can see, I myself rarely find myself editing. I have time to only reevert vandalism - I'm very busy, but anyway - I'll definitely keep an eye.;) Have a great vacation. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice holiday amigo! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't get

You again say - "Kapoor launched her own clothing line in association of being the brand ambassadress for Globus" - what do you mean by "in association of being the brand ambassadress for". Then it's again unclear. Did she launch her own clothing line in association with Globus? Or maybe she is the brand ambassador of Globus and it is one of many activities she did for them?

If she launched her own clothing so it's obviously in the OW section. A sole subsection is definitely not needed, there is other text in the section which is not a sub, and in addition to that it would look very poorly in the table of contents. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes other work would be more appropriate, I thought you were on holiday?? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was a quick holiday! Hope you had a good time ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I am very busy -- have no time :( and you? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jab We Met

Hey, dude, we haven't spoken in months! I just came across your outstanding work on Kareena Kapoor and eventually led to the Jab We Met page. Why don't you nominate Jab We Met for a GA? Universal Hero (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you, same here, just came back from a large well-deserved break from India. I've got a bit of time on my hands, uni starts in about a month and a half for me so, I suggest we do submit JWM for GA. It's far better than many which have a GA so far, so I don't think it would be too difficult to pass. What do you say? Universal Hero (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, again. I'll proof read it soon and try to develop it but it won't be done immediately, maybe two weeks mate. I've got personal commitments at the moment. But it is something I'll do? Any way, has Preity Zinta's page been on the main page yet? Universal Hero (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey firend

Talk to you later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 03:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone missed you very much... :) I'm leaving soon because real-life circumstances force me to, but I'll definitely visit. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing such thing as a career section is always a result of a common sense. I quite like the way it is written, you may not like. The case is that the film was forgotten before it was released. A synopsis is fine, but what would you write? I'm saying that because... ... ... there was no synopsis!!! LOL!! It's like Preity's JBJ LOL!!! You have to write what her role was of course, and you obviously can add a quote or write something about her being applauded for her confidence, I mean, the bikini... But a Bikini is not a big deal, and if a westerner sees that he will be like: "What's the big ****ing deal?!" Apart from that, I don't really remember critics noting something about acting, so it is liable that her status as a talented actress will be reduced if you mention the bikini, it's a bit pathetic. On the whole, I think I read an article writing that her collaboration with YRF surprisingly never works; it is something very interesting that would make sense, because it explains that she's an actress who's capable to do much more and that her talent is not restricted to the commercial chance only (something they do with Bipasha for example). Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall very well done. Only that: A) I'm not sure the quote reflects the majority view. B) The film is a super commercial flick - the most important aspect of the film's reception is the audience, the box office. The film was a big BO failure, and it is overlooked. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul, now when I read Bebo's article, I'm a bit concerned about terms like "cosmetic beauty", "high-profile", "femme fatale" etc. Only now can I recognise that. They can be easily considered our own POV, and reviewers in the future may find them as odd, unclear and unencyclopedic. The PR was short, and not many contributed their views.
Have you been to the Unforgetable show?
I've heard a lot about it in the last few days? Do you also think Minissha Lamba resembles Preity? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! Actually I would have thought femme fatale would have been the most acceptable out of the three. I would try to avoid words like bubbly and cosmetic beauty to avoid WP:PEACOCK.

I;d recommend something like this:

"Kapoor played the female protagonist Geet Dhillon, a vivacious Sikhni girl with a strong zest for life."

Best The Bald One ^{White cat} 08:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by a "cosmetic beauty". Is she a beauty expert in cosmetics, or does it refer to her finely polished beauty of what? The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see an "airhead" like Paris Hilton? LOL. Mmm I'm trying to think of an encyclopedic word that doesn't sound too much like pop culture and a peacock. I'll have a look at the plot see what I can conjure up The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've removed the cosmetic beauty part as this is mentioned in the quote and just changed it to her performance as Pooja. As the cosmetic beauty part is in the quote is should be acceptable. P.S. it seems to be under attack from an ip which has been reverted twice so be on your guard! The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Well it is loose expression so is difficult to view as anything other than a view, only high profile generally refers to the status of the actors or production. I'd change it to "notable" although I don't think it really a major issue in my view but I can see how some people might pick up on it. Best to be on the safe side. Regards The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, personally I don't see a problem with using femme fetale. I have no idea what others think but I wouldn't be outraged if I read an article with a reference such as that in it. The reason why I think it differs from "high profile" is that is doesn't really involve a personal opinion on what is considered a higher film. I see femme fatale as another word to describe a luring attactive women who is ultimately dangerous and deadly. See definition. If she clearly fits this description in the way that characters like Fiona Volpe etc do then keep it. If you describe her as femme fatale this tells me a lot more about her type of chaarcter than just "woman". The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm its a tough one as "notable" like "high profile" is also a view based on the perception of the editor. It is a decision that dismisses some of the films as of lesser signifance and implies those two films are the only two of note. If these films had a higher budget, why not use this based on fact? The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change it to imply they were the two "high budget" films of the period. If you reword the preliminary sentence you can adjust the following sentences and avoid using "high profile" specifically. The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've reworded it. If you don't like it revert it. It is safe to say that those two "high-profile" films were subject to public expectancy which apparently wasn't fulfilled? The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its tricky that. I;ve worded it so when you come to the second film it implies that both that and the previous were high budget films and anticipated by the public, but to word it to avoid repetition or POV. May still need tweaking though if others are unhappy with it The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoneProbably not according to MOS. The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Khan

Brother, you seem to think that my version was not well written. I respect your right to opinion, but beg to differ with that view. I contend that, in fact, it is your version that is not written well. OoOpS (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sour grapes

Just a clear case of sour grapes. This editor was blocked for whatever he did and now thinks its appropriate to try to compensate in retaliation by removing others which have clear rationales The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiafm.com/Bollywoodhungama.com images

Hey there. How've you been doing all this while. I thought firstly, I'd let you know that the RDB image at Golden Temple is now being used on the film article's page. One OTRS volunteer clarified that emails seeking permission for images from indiafm.com are not needed as long as the images are as per the permission. Please see this communique for details. However, I had this additional question. Now since Indiafm.com is now known as bollywoodhungama.com:

Is this permission still valid for all the older images?
Can new images be uploaded which now appear on bollywoodhungama.com web domain?

Your advise will be appreciated. Mspraveen (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for the quick answer. Then was the action of User:Howcheng inappropriate? I'm sure at the OTRS database, User:Riana (now retired) must have included this detail for others to see. I don't know what made Howcheng say that. Do you think we prod him for details? Mspraveen (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then who adds the template documentation and OTRS permission to RDB image? Howcheng or any OTRS volunteer? That's why I feel that we might need to prod him into this discussion. Mspraveen (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following was emailed to me by him Mspraveen (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No action is required on this ticket by me. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Howard Cheng

The original procedure is what I followed for the RDB image. It was only after User:Nishkid suggested that I contact Howcheng/one more editor for OTRS verification. For two months to get clarified is quite a big deal - is it normal? If Howcheng cleared it, then I guess others will too (I think not in the fashion that User:Lucasbfr did for your images). Mspraveen (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jab We Met

While visiting the Jab We Met article, I was very much impressed at your good work. However I've one small grudge that I raised on the article's talk page as well. This refers to the excessive number of non-free fair-use images in the article. As per the non-free guidelines the usage of excessive images is to be reduced and to be limited as much as possible. Most of these images carry Shahid and Kareena's images and hence 6 images is far too high. I was hoping to discuss this with you before removing at least 3 of them from the article page. Also I hope that you don't mind me doing quick checks for MOS consistency and additional info. Mspraveen (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

How've you been? I'm fine, a bit busy but fine :)

Oh the trailers are great - I see the Heroes one for the first time, so thank you.

I'm very excited to see The Last Lear. I'm not sure we have to move The Last Lear just because it gets released now. The filmography IMO shouldn't be organised in order of theatrical releases. I'm not sure though, so I'll ask someone.

BTW, have you seen the Heaven on Earth (film) trailer and its entry on the Toronto film festival site? Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well by November or December, I'll have been away from WP. But I'll definitely come to visit you guys at times to say hello. Yeh I'm happy to see Preity in this kind of roles, I'd been waiting for that for so long, because I knew she's capable, that she is not just a bubbly chatterbox... I can't wait to see the film and see TLL... Well... How are you? And what are you planning to do these days? Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jab We Met DVD Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jab We Met DVD Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is your last warning!

If you don't come back to WP within two days, you will be blocked indefinitely.

PLEASE COME BACK.... Where are you??? Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me

Hello, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ. I have seen your contributions to Indian cinema and am quite impressed with you. Can you help me in uploading http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Premiere_of_Mere_Baap_Pehle_Aap/still42820.html from IndiaFM or tell me the procedure. I don't have enough knowledge of OTRS. I have contacted you since you have uploaded a similar kind of image Image:AishwaryaRai.jpg. Your advise will be very much helpful. Thankyou, very much, Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 13:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shahid in JWM.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shahid in JWM.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kareena in JWM.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kareena in JWM.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your hard work on taking Kareena Kapoor to FA status. You deserve it. Keep it up!Prashant ✉ 12:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your hard work and effort to getting Kareena Kapoor to FA status! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind gesture my friend! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 00:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what your next project will be, I'd be happy to work with you on it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smarojit and I are planning on taking Rani Mukerji to FA! After that would probably be Kajol! You can help out if you like! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, please let me know when you will begin on it!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work has already begun bud! Smarojit has been tweaking the article and I've been looking for enough sources to help create an artistry section. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FA award

	FA award
	For taking Kareena Kapoor to FA status. Congratulations! Zia Khan 03:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and keep up the good work :) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your FA. That was a hard fought win! Now please take a look at my candidate :-) BollyJeff | talk 11:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Rahul. Very, very well deserved. :) :) --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 12:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!! Excellent work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ! Well worth the work. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Congrats. Your hard work is well paid. Enjoy and keep up the good work. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone is going to be overwhelmed with congrats. ;) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations (didn't see that star before now). T4B (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 21:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

I would like to address your comment, but keep running into conflict with your edits. Can I have a minute please? BollyJeff | talk 03:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got it. Umm, you added "Her aunt later relocated to Boston, where she participated in several theatre productions..." Who participated, PC or her aunt? You also screwed up reference 12; the url is same as 11 now. I know the article needs a little help, but please be careful. BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issues above. If you would list the problems on the review page, I would be glad to make the improvements myself. What I am having the most trouble with though is getting past the bulletlist style of prose (without adding un-referenced text). It also seems like very few folks want to take the time to review it, so not much action is happening on the review. BollyJeff | talk 02:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think time is growing very short for additional comments or verdicts on this FAC. Are you able to have another look? BollyJeff | talk 22:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, too late. BollyJeff | talk 01:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't very tactful, but I had made this huge edit, and it got blocked (twice) due to conflicting edits of yours. And then when I found errors in those edits, I really got ticked off (you don't deny the errors, do you?). For KK I made comments and let you do the editing. Also, in my mind I blamed you for the lack of response to PCs FA. I think you knew that I was preparing this for FA with the peer review and all, but you suddenly nominated KK ahead of it. Reviewers had probably had enough of Indians actresses by then. It may not be true at all, but it's how I felt. So I apologize for the language above, but I hope you understand how it came about now. I am still pretty bummed out about the failure; I don't know if I want to try again or not. I am obviously not a professional writer. BollyJeff | talk 01:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarifications. BollyJeff | talk 02:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm intended. I am glad that you explained what happened, really. BollyJeff | talk 04:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks amigo, Rani Mukerji next eh? And Jeff, Priyanka Chopra, we will get to FA sometime, don't worry about it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how Shahid found the time to vote support on the Kapoor article but couldn't find himself to utter a single word about Mother India passing FA. Funny guy, always very guarded about his personal life and there's no excuse to not find half a minute in logging in on that one. He's weirder than Sarvagnya in my opinion!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special performance award

Someone is trying to add this for Sridevi again on all the related pages. Their rational on my talk page is that the press doesn't always cover these special awards, but they are still valid, citing Kareena Kapoor's award for Chameli. So I thought surely it would be properly sourced on Kapoor's page, but it seems not to be. Neither source mentions this award. So two things: Can you please properly source this award for Kapoor? And how can you prove that Sridevi's award was a joke. This editor, like me, thinks it would have been a mean thing to do. BollyJeff | talk 15:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at Kapoor's awards and nominations article, you'll see that a source is already provided for her win. It's the official source from Filmfare for all the wins from the 2003 award ceremony. Although Chameli released in 2004, she was awarded the previous year. If you make a search for the 49th Filmfare Awards, you can see that she was awarded. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I added that citation to her main article, but that web site only goes up to 2005 or so, not beyond. Do you know if there are official pages for other years, like 2013 for example? I am getting tired of fighting this Sridevi thing, so I about to just let it go. BollyJeff | talk 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ranbir Kapoor

Hi there! So I know you're busy and all, but I was wondering if you could answer a question of mine when you get time. There's a guy/girl who keeps editing the Filmography section of Ranbir's page. He/she wants to get rid of the table altogether, but I think for now that's taken care of. However, in the Filmography section, they have placed the "Special appearance" note in the "Role" section, instead of the "Notes" section. i.e:

| 2009 <---YEAR

!scope="row"| Luck by Chance <---FILM

| Special appearance as himself <---ROLE

| <---NOTES

Should it not be like this..I mean, ALL other B'wood celebs have it like this, including Kareena who you've editted constantly (btw, congratz on getting her to FA status!!):

| 2009 <---YEAR

!scope="row"| Luck by Chance <---FILM

| Himself <---ROLE

| Special appearance <---NOTES

I know it doesn't seem like a big issue, but I am just concerned since Ranbir's is the only page like this. Chulbul pandey ab (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically it should be like the latter, but I don't know what he's up to. Before, he was adamant on organizing Ranbir's films without a table. I just find him weird! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Thanks, man! Chulbul pandey ab (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kapoor edits

I'd suggest to maintain the edits done by Ohconfucious, and if needed continue the discussion in talk page. Although I am not familiar with his/her editing style/preference (and have not gone through the changes), Tony1 is one of the most capable copyeditors. If he agrees, that means seriously the prose had flaws. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why an editor of Tony's stature would say that, but I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 07:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chopra FAC

Hey. . I have nominated Chopra article. Please, comment as soon as you could. Try to comment as soon as possible. I would be grateful. comment here Prashant talk 04:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported Pks1142 here. I would appreciate your support in this matter. Thank you. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 05:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smarojit

Hey. It was a big argument between him and Pks1142 about Priyanka Chopra. Some is on the article talk, and all of our user talk pages. It only settled down when Smaro left and Blofeld came in to work on the article. I have been meaning to email him. Hopefully he will miss us and come back at some point. BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are still waiting for Blofeld to finish what he is doing on Chopra, so I am moving on to other things. Look at User:Bollyjeff#Current_projects. It's interesting to me how only actresses, and not actors, are getting to FA treatment these days. BollyJeff | talk 23:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really need any help from me on that. I will give it a quick look though. Perhaps you could make a comment or two at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sholay/archive1? BollyJeff | talk 02:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain about PB. Here is another, from India Today, with a higher number. Hope you have Highbeam access:

JWM 15 cr

You can still use it though; I will add it later with a quotation. You can sign up for a temporary Highbeam account here. BollyJeff | talk 18:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Congrats!!!

Hi!! It's so great to finally hear from you. Where have you been all this while? Anyway, thank you so very much. I must tell you that I missed you very, very much while working on Mukerji. I am currently working on both Ranbir Kapoor and Deepika Padukone's articles. Kapoor's article is mostly over and is currently being reviewed for GA by our very own Dr. Blofeld. I would love to work with you on Kajol! And yes, Saif too, but maybe after I am done with Kapoor and Padukone. I hope that's okay! --smarojit ^HD 02:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. It would be great if you could help out on Padukone. There is so much work left on the "early life" and the later sections. I am currently concentrating on the "career" section. --smarojit ^HD 03:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. And yet again, thank you so much. :) --smarojit ^HD 03:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you haven't enabled the e-mail feature here. I wanted to send you an e-mail. --smarojit ^HD 04:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really find the option. Never mind. :) --smarojit ^HD 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello amigo! Mughal for FA!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have made some changes to the lead of Kareena Kapoor's article as I feel the lead should summarise her entire career and not stop at 2010. Please change if you don't agree with them. :) Also, shouldn't we make a request to feature her article on the main page on the 21st of September? --smarojit ^HD 11:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this: User:Smarojit/sandbox. --smarojit ^HD 13:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that shouldn't really deter this article. Her birthday is the best time to feature her, and I really think you should nominate it as soon as possible. I have made some small changes to the main article, and the blurb on your sandbox. I hope it's fine. :) --smarojit ^HD 02:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's excellent. I have made a small grammatical adjustment at both the places. Please nominate it now, before someone else reserves the date. --smarojit ^HD 09:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's obviously your call as you are the principal contributor to the article. But I personally see no problem in nominating it now, and seeing what the response is. If they deem it is too soon, then we can shift the date to her wedding anniversary, or probably next year. --smarojit ^HD 03:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saif Ali Khan

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Saif Ali Khan because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please be aware that in the 26th amendment to the Constitution of India promulgated in 1971, all titles, privileges (including remuneration, i.e. privy purses) were abolished by the Government of India. Consequently we cannot call Mr. Khan the "Nawab of Pataudi," not even "titular Nawab of Pataudi." It doesn't matter that the India press calls him that, and that there are plenty of sources attesting to that title. Wikipedia cannot afford to give out false information. I have removed all suggestions in the article that he is a "Nawab," including words such as "formally" (what does that mean?), "crowned" (with a turban?), etc. Please do not change it back. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I was looking at the top editors for various articles, and noticed that you were #1 and #2 for so many articles, which is amazing...so this is for being such a fantastic editor! :) AB01 (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words my friend. Much appreciated! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! AB01 (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Priyanka Chopra. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Gori Tere Pyaar Mein, you may be blocked from editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]