User talk:Bollyjeff/Archive 6

talk page conventions

In this edit you placed a comment in the middle of one of my comments. This was counter to the talk page conventions we generally follow, so I moved your comment to after the end of my comment.

I've experienced a lot of frustration, going back to read older discussions, when I have found someone who looks like a moron has left fragmentary, incomplete, incoherent and unsigned comments. A bunch of times I have stepped through those discussions, one edit at a time, so I could place an {{unsigned}} template, identifying the author, and the time and date for those fragmentary comments. When I first started doing this I was both surprised and disappointed when I realize that what looked like fragmentary, incomplete comments had actually been one comment, a complete, not fragmentary comment, one that had been properly signed. What I found was that these comments made a lot more sense, before they were broken apart when someone didn't follow the convention of leaving their followup comment at the end of the original poster's comment, but had, instead, broken up the original comment by placing multiple followups in the middle. When the followup comments start to get followup comments of their own, the fragments of the original comment look more and more incoherent. It can be extremely unfair to the original commenter whose comment broken up. The more followups break up the fragments, the more unfair it is.

Sometimes the original commenter's comment, when viewed as a whole, was extremely coherent, made valid points, that deserved being taken seriously.

This is why I moved your comment to the end of the section. Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted everyone to know which of your statements that I was responding to, but no worries either way. BollyJeff | talk 02:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SRK

I can understand your concerns about further cutting the SRK article. I don't want to lose to much either, but it was most concerning to me that Tim riley, an editor I respect more than most on here, thought it excessive and couldn't read it. It should be comfortable to read as an FA for anybody who isn't a Bollywood fan too.. I do think if SRK is really going to pass and to be approved of by our regular actor editors n the long term then it does need to be trimmed, by 8kb of readable prose as Crisco suggested might be good. I did add a fair bit, some of which might not be essential. I've created a Film career of Shah Rukh Khan entry so nothing is lost, which I think could be expanded as fully as possible with lots of reviews and production info and that could be brought up to GA/FA status in its own right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think, and I believe neither will they, that the main article was trimmed enough yet. If you are having a new article, it should not have 90% identical content to an existing article. Shouldn't maybe all the career sections be as short as the first two to make it really worthwhile? For example, 'Romantic hero' could include just DDLJ, DTPH, KKHH and summary. Just a thought. I will also look for easier trimming meanwhile. BollyJeff | talk 08:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the SRK article is now shorter overall than Priyanka Chopra which is FA. You'd expect the SRK article to be much longer... If you or a page stalker is interested in expanding the film career article into something really impressive at a later date then we'll keep it. If not then I'll db author it. But I think for somebody like SRK a really detailed article on his career for those who want it might be good for a lot of our readers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like my idea of keeping the new one and shortening the main one further? 'Challenges' could have just the Dreamz pictures and surgery info, with a summary mention of his successes. 'Resurgence' and 'present' could include just award winners, and summary of others. I don't know, these people seem more concerned about length than content, even though I have proven that there are other longer actor articles. Please do not delete the new one without checking with me. Oh, and thank you for creating it. BollyJeff | talk 14:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good length now I think, I'm not going to cut anything else. The idea is that the film career article is expanded in a way you'd ideally like for the main article without worrying about too much detail. In that article you can cover every film or at least most of them and adds more reviews etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This type of efforts really does require appreciation... Congrats ... Bollyjeff..... #enhanced readability..☺👍👍 Metre per second (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaji

Hello, I am planning to take this film to FA status. I found Rediff, Behindwoods and Sify having Sivaji special news links which show all coverage of the film (mainly news about its making and release.). But, I am worried about Behindwoods as you mentioned in the FAC of Chandralekha that it wasn't reliable. What do I do? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 17:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Jeff mentioned in some earlier PR/FAC that he has a son, meaning "bro" does not look like the right name to use by us

. And because Behindwoods has a well-developing Wikipedia article with external sources, I think it should satisfy RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Oops, sorry, my bad. Didn't know he had a son. Changed it now.

— Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to do a peer review first? I can tell you right away that the citation formatting is not good yet. If I were you, I would take Behindwoods to the reliable sources board to make sure it's okay. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. BollyJeff | talk 17:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't worked on the article yet. I have only collected sources and references. BTW, isn't Bollywood Hungama's article shorter than Behindwoods's article? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 03:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the size of their WP article's matters. Its about the qualifications of the people running the site, editorial oversight, and such stuff. BollyJeff | talk 03:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks for mentioning that. Here is the sandbox for my reference collection. BTW, would it be possible if I use those references from behindwoods that are confirmed news? Like for example if the webiste states that a song from a film was shot in Bilbao, Spain, then can I use that source to explain that news? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 03:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram filmography

Hi! I have nominated the list for FLC and I invite you to review the nomination and suggest improvements, if any. Here is the nomination page. Thanks. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 13:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kajol filmography

Hi Bollyjeff! I have a filmography up at FLC. If you are willing to review it, here is the link. Thanks in advance. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanam Teri Kasam is a 2009 film.

This refers to your edit made on 26th of October, in 2010 when the page on the movie, "Sanam Teri Kasam", was first created.

I have corrected the date of the release of the film from 2000 to 2009 citing ref. - http://www.amazon.com/Sanam-Teri-Kasam-Saif-Khan/product-reviews/B002NZ8OSK

Your edit:- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanam_Teri_Kasam_(2000_film)&oldid=392903919

Can you please correct the Title of the page which still is, 2000 ? Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Would you like to comment here as there is a discussion going on. Its Wp:Own case. Pls, help.—Prashant 07:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I dont even have permission to introduce smaller changes into the lead? I really dont understand why you guys keep on reverting my edits? Each and every article is structured in the same way. If yo can watch Mukerji's article Successful career, successful films, four successful words are used. Why I am even tellibg you.—Prashant 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it from Rani. BollyJeff | talk 18:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, Deepika and others?—Prashant 18:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you removed the same from Deepika's lead?—Prashant 18:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not in the mood to hunt down every article and make them all appear the same just to make you happy. Do it yourself, if its important to you. Generally, articles should not change very much after FA. BollyJeff | talk 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about updates in an FA? It means the article should not be updated to maintain it?—Prashant 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. BollyJeff | talk 19:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behindwoods

Kailash29792 sent me these sources to show the website's notability. Thought I might forward them to you. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krimuk90

Why on Earth has he placed an evil-eyed cat's picture on both his user and talk pages? Could it be a sign that he has left Wikipedia due to the "side-effects" of his war with Prashant? But I don't think he did anything wrong apart from just preventing the inclusion of unencyclopedic content. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a lot of people be happy if I left? But no, I just need a breather from assholes. Also, the cat is to save me from buri nazar. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief. Hey, can you give me your opinion on this: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Shah_Rukh_Khan/archive2#Question_from_Bollyjeff. BollyJeff | talk 11:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Enthiran/archive1

I have opened the peer review for the film. Please do suggest any changes that I should make before I go for FAC. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DDLJ

DDLJ is back! But why would the public have demanded it to continue running, when the last show at the theatre had very low occupancy, and would have remained that way? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If it missed a few days of showing, but still showed at least one day during the week, would you say that it still counts as continuous? Anyway, it should sort itself out soon. BollyJeff | talk 22:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But now it is pointless to "continue" the run as it was finally interrupted; now it just looks like a re-release. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought: because the film will turn 20 this year, how about taking it to FAC? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I am fixing it up now, to see if it's going to be possible. Feel free to help. BollyJeff | talk 15:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you manage to buy this book? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, too rich. I have been using the online portions of Anupama Chopra's book; I don't even own that one. BollyJeff | talk 13:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived all the references except #57, #58 and #83 as the website could not archive it. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Try webcite archive! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Even with that it didn't materialise. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Similar issue with Srinivas' PDF in Pathala Bhairavi. Let's see whether any other archive websites can be used? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Share your opinion

Hi Bollyjeff, It's a request you to please share your opinion on Talk:Sargun Mehta. Hetika (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enthiran/archive1

I have opened the FAC for Enthiran. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to abstain because of my previous experience with the article. Good luck though. BollyJeff | talk 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"* Carlton Cards - Carlton Cards Limited, a Canadian greeting card company"

IMO, your edit was constructively intended, and not part of what may be an effort by at least one IP to give the company an unwarranted level of exposure at the cost of cluttering WP. (An IP added the entry you eventually modified; if we were thoro enuf, it would have already been removed in light of the dab'n of "Carleton" to the sense "Carlton Cards" being alrady adequately, and less distractingly, implemented via the Dab-page link to Carlton (disambiguation).
Thanks,
--Jerzy•t 06:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pee Cee

can we add "Pee Cee" in her lead as she is widely regarded by this name. Now, she is evn more popular by this name as all the media and people call her that. What's your thought on this?—Prashant 11:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the Shah Rukh Khan article there is a source that actually says he is known as SRK. If you can find a source that states it as fact, then I think its fine. Don't just list multiple sources as evidence. BollyJeff | talk 12:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me see if I can find one. There was a source, I used in the further reading, that was removed way back in 2013. I hope I can find much more sources.—Prashant 14:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the sources for her name. Plus, she is also refered as "Desi Girl" and "Junglee Billi". They can be added too?—Prashant 14:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know that "Piggy Chops" is already listed in the 'In the media' section right? Please don't add every nicknanme, it's too much. Salman Khan has dozens of nicknames that the media calls him occasionally, but they are not listed in his article. This will cheapen the article (make it look less professional) in my opinion. On second thought I would prefer not to see PeeCee in the lead; makes me think of PC. Could you just put it in 'In the media' section? BollyJeff | talk 15:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've already added PeeCee or simply PC as she is popularly referred as. I have not added other names.—Prashant 16:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Govindudu Andarivadele

Would you like to conduct a GA Review on this article? Please let me know if you are interested in doing so. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this message almost 18 days back and no reply till now and you've been active since these many days. Hence i assume that you are not at all interested to take up a GAR of this article. Sorry for troubling you. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DDLJ - Raj and Simran

Hi Bollyjeff I noticed you reverted my edits on the DDLJ page - Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. It was pretty clear that both Raj and Simran did not ever see India and that their parents were in London since decades. So how are they Non resident Indians - Non resident Indians have an Indian Passport. I think it would be correct to say they were British Indians. I know its not a big deal but i thought wikipedia should have things more accurate, atleast on the TOP of the page. Cheers! Firdaushaque (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may, or may not, be technically correct; I don't think it was established if Raj and Simran were actually born in India. However, all of the sources used refer to them as NRIs, not British Indians, so we have to go with that. BollyJeff | talk 14:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I basically think NRI, as implied by its name, means Non Residential Indian! One who does not live in India! Kailash29792 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The Native name and Nationality of a person is predefined in the infobox of a person in english wikipedia, how do you say that its not used? Ankush 89 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indic scripts were discussed and a consensus was formed. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_India#Indic_scripts_in_lead. Nationality in Info box is fine. BollyJeff | talk 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hello Jeff this is dfrr. that edit you did on Mary Poppins (film) is just awesome you deserve this barnstar. also I am sorry for awarding the wrong user. my mistake. thank you and have a great day. Dfrr (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

saw you thank me:-)

hi bollyjeff I saw you responded on the barnstar. well You are welcomeDfrr (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC) (Talk to me:-)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sargun Mehta/archive1

Hi Bollyjeff, I've opened a peer review, so i request you to please add your comments here. :) Hetika (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your edit. Could you suggest me something about this?

1) this link is published in hindi language and this is the only one that verifies her birth(6 September 1988). So this one is better?

The one you have looks okay, but the grammar could be better on the quote.

Actually the quote was a translation of the source text by Google Translate.

2) this link is dead and is cited on her 2011 Golden Petal Award nomination, currently i've no any archive or other source, so please suggest me.

I tried to find an archived version of http://colors.in.com/in/golden-petal-awards, but could only get back to 2012. Why don't they have their own list of past winners? Keep looking for notices from 2011.

indiafun.net is RS or not? Previously i was removed this as Unreliable source. Hetika (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see her name listed there anyway. BollyJeff | talk

In this she was nomitated for her show Phulwa in the "Most Jaanbaaz Personality" category. I know Actors name are not listed in this, but their shows and characters name are exist. So please tell me, Is this RS or not? Hetika (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) this video link is published from official youtube account of Sony Entertainment Television India. so this one is good for Verifiability? Hetika (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be okay, since its the official channel. BollyJeff | talk 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anand

I'll look into your article shortly. I've recently seen Anand (1971 film). Would you be interested in helping get it to GA status?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I want to branch out into some stuff other than Indian cinema after my two current projects. BollyJeff | talk

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A long-overdue barnstar to one of the brilliant editors on Wikipedia. And, for your inspiring work on film articles. —Prashant 06:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For Featured Articles C E (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran - First Superstar FA!

Great news! Enthiran is promoted! My first FA success! Hooray! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bollyjeff. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--C E (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge

Hello, Bollyjeff. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Kashyap filmography

Please if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Anurag Kashyap filmography/archive1. Yashthepunisher (talk) 2:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You should see the credits of Yudh, there is no director-producer anurag kashyap. He is just the creative director. Comment further here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 4:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!!

Featured article

Shah Rukh Khan

From Ssven2 to Bollyjeff, for taking the article on the biggest star of India, Shah Rukh Khan, to FA. An achievement to be very proud of! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am very happy to have gotten this important article to this level. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CONGRATS! This was indeed a very difficult job. Kudos!--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey congrats! Finally, we've got an FA on an Indian actor. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why should only the ladies be recognized? Someone needs to do Big B now. He is not even at GA. BollyJeff | talk 12:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, why should only ladies have all the fun? :) We badly need FAs on stars like Big B, Rajini, Kamal and Aamir. As for SRK's article, it's good that you've covered even a film like Maya Memsaab, but I don't find a mention about critically acclaimed films like Hey Ram and Paheli. You could've left out the former citing the lack of a full-length role for him, but what about the latter? —Vensatry _(ping) 13:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was about the length. I don't know if you have been following this, but we had to cut a lot of good non-film info and move it into a separate article because reviewers complained about the length. The two films you mention did not win him any awards or set any records, but Maya was mentioned because it was controversial and explained why he never kissed on screen for most of his career. BollyJeff | talk 13:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how can length be attributed exactly to comprehensiveness? Is winning an award the only yardstick to measure a film/actor's importance? I'm not able to find a mention of both the films in his filmography page either (in lede). I might sound a little opinionated here, I bet SRK himself would include at least Hey Ram among the best films that he's acted. The fact that he did not receive any payment for acting in Hey Ram is surely worth mentioning in his biography. —Vensatry _(ping) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The no payment fact was in there previous, but it was removed. You want to argue now that its promoted; where were you for both FACs and PRs?? Take a look at FAC1 to see how how length was an issue. If not reduced, it never would have been promoted, period! BollyJeff | talk 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, I'm not complaining about anything. By length, the reviewers would have meant the size of the article literally. I'm sure nobody would've told you to cut-short the degree of comprehensiveness of the subject. What amuses me really is you mention a film like Duplicate as if it's a landmark film in his career, and justify the exclusion of those two internationally acclaimed films solely based on length. I wasn't really aware of this FAC as nobody invited me for the PR or FAC either. If I had any intent to challenge the promotion of this article, I'd have initiated a discussion in the article's talk page straight away and not here. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are complaining and criticizing, which is really easy to do when you were not the one jerked around for a year by dozens of reviewers with opposing ideas of what should be included. You are free to edit the article any time you want. Go for it! Just make sure that your edits are FA quality. BollyJeff | talk 17:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the way you comprehend things, you are free to take it that way. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many congratulations on the success of the article. Although I have never been involved in the article, I have been wandering around the article since a considerable amount of time. Well done man! -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 18:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on this guys! Will be great to see it as Today's featured article on his 50th birthday. Cowlibob (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been slow on the uptake, indeed a great achievement, make sure he's TFA in November!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb candidate is sitting at User:Bollyjeff/sandbox. It may be a tiny bit long, but perhaps not. BollyJeff | talk 23:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1

I have opened the peer review for Mayabazar (1957), the first Telugu film to be attempted for FA class. Feel free to leave comments. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder!

Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, which were resolved by Ssven2 in my absence. I've made a request at WP:GOCE for a thorough c/e. Any other issues? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update : Miniapolis has completed a copy-edit on Mayabazar on 6 July 2015 upon a request at GOCE. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List

I have just created a list of films that I have seen. What do you think of it? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you are Bollywood lover (Good Article/Featured article)

Mr. India (1987 film), Shaan (film), Don (1978 film), Mohra, Johny Mera Naam, Teesri Manzil. --Cosmic Emperor 12:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Too Soon (album)

Hi Bollyjeff ! Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting on my newly opened FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andaz Apna Apna et al

I'd come across a Salman Khan fan who seemed insistent on changing all credits to place Salman first in multiple movies. I have no idea or interest in how the credits actually roll, but this seemed disruptive, especially as he's been warned on this before, so I issued a final warning. I'll leave it up to you and others to figure out how the credits should actually be laid out. —SpacemanSpiff 12:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kill 'Em All

Hey Bollyjeff, can you make an update on the FAC and tell me what else needs to be corrected in order to receive full support? Appreciate your time.--Retrohead (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFA request submitted for Pather Panchali

Please be advised that a featured article to which you contributed, Pather Panchali, has been requested by me to be selected as Today's Featured Article for August 26th (the 50th anniversary of its official release). If you would like to support this nomination, please go to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Dylanexpert (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your support! The blurb edits are fine. Dylanexpert (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalidas (film)/archive1

The article on the first talking picture in Tamil is at FAC (nominated by Kailash29792). Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 09:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Rukh Khan's father's death date

In this interview, SRK stated that his father died in 1981. Can it be used in the article? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already used it a couple days ago. BollyJeff | talk 15:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I reverted as it was unconstructive, and other unconstructive edits by other amateur editors also happened shortly after, so I had to revert all. I guess you can re-add it as you know how to. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian cinema - comment requested

Hi there, this is a form letter. (Aren't you special!) Since you edit around Indian cinema articles, your comments are solicited at this discussion at the Indian cinema task force. The question is: Should box office gross totals be labeled as estimates?

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Aapke Hai Koun...

Why you want to put SALMAN Khan's name after Madhuri's name? Salman Khan was the lead actor of the film and Madhuri was his heroine, so Salman's name will come 1st as for all other Hindi films (including DDLJ 😉) on Wikipedia, lead actor's name comes 1st, or if u watch the movie Hum Aapke Hai Koun once again you can see on the silver screen also casting starts with Salman Khan; So please stop your arrogant reverting of correct edits otherwise you will be blocked to edit Wikipedia pages in future! Best of Luck! Raaj494 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on my talk page

Hi Bollyjeff, I responded to your question on my talk page, thanks for asking. I was also wondering if you would be willing to help out with the Chak De! India article, as I have a question I cannot seem to resolve. You've been very helpful in the past. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Featured article

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge

From Kailash to Bollyjeff, for taking the article on one of India's most iconic films, DDLJ, to FA. Congratulations on your second FA of 2015! — Kailash29792 (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you!

	The Shah Rukh-Kajol Award of Excellence
	For bringing DDLJ to FA status and for rightfully making it the first Indian film FA in the 1990s! My heartiest congratulations to you! You deserve it! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For bringing Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge to FA status. Congratulations and all the best to your future endeavours as well. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About SUMKA

Hello BollyJeff, do you mean this part: << Their Propaganda consisted mainly of Anti–Arabism, Anti–Islam, Anti–Semitism and discrimination against non–Aryan minorities in Iran such as the Baluchs, Afghans, Pakistanis, Arabs, Turkmen, Iraqis, etc. >> I don't really get why you deleted it because Monshizadeh mentioned exactly this in one of his speeches in Tehran so I think it should be wise to include this. I would like to know why you deleted this part.

Sincere regards, Antifa Globos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifa Globos (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04.09.2015

I already gave a link to the source at the bottom of the page but I'll post it here so you can see: ianf.hyperboards.com/ The admin deactivated the open-look function of the website a few years ago so that just the members of the page can watch the actual threads. But you will find the info also when you google a bit about SUMKA or watch the speech of Pezeshkpour on YouTube.

As I said, there is this speech where he stated it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJGHq7naE4I Besides that, it's obvious that the SUMKA was anti-Arab and anti-islam when the nationalists already had this attitude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifa Globos (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All-time blockbuster

Hi Bollyjeff, though I get your point re: this edit, I don't see what encyclopedic value there is in describing films with nebulous (and in this case promotional) terminology like "all-time blockbuster". It certainly doesn't strike me as neutral terminology, and the box office section isn't the place for film reviews, which is what this comes off as, albeit a review of the box office, not the quality of the film. I would also point out that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and in western films we typically don't describe films using Rotten Tomatoes' "fresh/rotten" rating system, even by saying "Rotten Tomatoes described the critical approval as 'Fresh'." It's just not useful. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Dookudu

This, is my first film awards list at the FLC. If interested, please leave your comments here. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Girl at FAC

Hello. I'm leaving this same message to everyone who commented at the first FAC nomination for Tank Girl (film). After having gone through improvements including a thorough copyedit courtesy of the guild of copyeditors, the article has been renominated – see here. All comments are welcome. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DDLJ TFA

Today is Oct 20, why isn't DDLJ today's FA? I thought the admins agreed upon that. BTW, I think this source states that the film never stopped running. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see that it'll be tomorrow. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: they pulled it so they could run Shah Rukh Khan on November 2; they could not run both. What do you mean it's tomorrow? See Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/November_2015. BollyJeff | talk 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, DDLJ will be tomorrow's (Oct 21) TFA. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it won't, not on en.wiki. Here is the October queue: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2015. BollyJeff | talk 14:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Gulf News source I mentioned here, is it worth adding to the article? It states: “Today, we commence the 1,041st week of screening DDLJ at Maratha Mandir,” Manoj Desai, managing director of the cinema told tabloid! on Friday, contradicting reports earlier this year that the film had had its final show in February. The management retracted its decision to stop screening after the 1,009th week as they were flooded with requests over social media and otherwise to reconsider. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose, although I dislike tat it says "contradicting reports". Maybe it stopped showing for a a day or two, but not the whole week?? BollyJeff | talk 16:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was disheartened not to see DDLJ as the featured article on 20th. Didn't realize the TFA got changed! Do it on 25th anniversary :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Editing

Hai, this Indian film article Loham needs copy editing for grammer and writting style. See Talk:Loham. I invite you to help a hand on it. --Charles Turing (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DailyO

Would you consider DailyO a reliable source? Although it is owned by India Today, I still doubt its credibility. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the About tab it says, "DailyO is an online opinion platform from the India Today Group." Does Wikipedia want opinions or facts? I guess it depends on the credibility of the individual authors, but in general, no. BollyJeff | talk 12:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you guys decide about this, you might consider adding it to User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF_FAQ. I could use any help you can each afford to donate on getting this FAQ up, which would greatly benefit the ICTF. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Precious again, your contributions to arguably the biggest film star in the world

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi, thanks for bringing SRK to FA and TFA. SRK is best but because of you his article is also best.-- Human3015^TALK 04:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayabazar

I've nominated this article for FAC which also happens to be my first attempt. It is also the first Indian Telugu film article to be nominated for such status. If interested, please leave your comments here. All constructive comments are welcomed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mullum Malarum FAC

Kailash29792 has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 09:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced info about historical context

It's referenced info about its historical context. Wikipedia is not censored. Please find someone else to accuse/slander. I am not interested in talking to you. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mean, just not interested in being harassed, so please stop. The university was founded as a white-only institution by Confederate veterans and only admitted African Americans many decades later. Those are facts. The article needs to be fact-based, not an advertisement. I have created many articles about Southern planters and their plantations as I am interested in the Antebellum South. I think you may be getting the wrong idea due to the current hysteria over political correctness. In any case, there is no need to discuss this further. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Opinion requested re: Metro Masti

Hi Bollyjeff, I'm trying to figure out what to do with this edit request that requests Nanban be removed from the list of top Tamil films. Obviously the IMDb source is insufficient. I did find this, but I'm not sure if the ICTF considers Metro Masti as reliable and I don't see it anywhere at User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ. Thoughts? Kailash29792, you have any opinions? Thanks guys, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Your recent editing history at Shah Rukh Khan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you're interested in dropping the issue or beginning to discuss the situation at the article's talk page, let me know with a ping (you have talk page access), as I'd be inclined to unblock if you're willing to do either one. Of course, returning to the edit-war would likely result in a quick reblock. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I do not understand the reason for the block. I did take it to the talk page. The only reason that I edited the main page after the warning was to correct an error made by the previous editor, not to revert anything. Did you look at my change? I will voluntarily not edit the page for the rest of the day, but I would like to be unblocked in case I need to respond on the talk page and/or DRN page. BollyJeff | talk 02:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're unblocked. I'm sorry for making this mistake: I checked the talk page and saw that the last several threads (including some started almost a month ago) didn't involve either of you. I think I'll reblock you for one second to make it clear that the first block was a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note at Winkelvi's talk — when the blocking administrator quickly unblocks you with a message clearly saying that the block was a mistake, nobody will hold the block against you. It's very different from when an admin unblocks while merely saying "unblock request accepted", which basically means "you've convinced me that you won't re-offend", because actions like mine say "there wasn't an offense in the first place". Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 03:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You've joined a select group of editors who've been blocked in error, e.g., omg. Even better, you have five entries in your block log for the one error whereas I have only two.

--Bbb23 (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello Bollyjeff: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Frankie _talk 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Why Gerua redirected?

Hello, the song called "Gerua" is become very popular that's why I've created a page of this song with the articles. There after someone redirected the article and aslo the Dilwale (Soundtrack) to Dilwale (2015 film). So I request you to recover those pages and develop. And also give proper license to it. ARNAB22 (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - ARNAB22, Bollyjeff was not the user who converted the article to a redirect, @Dharmadhyaksha: was. In a nutshell though, "popular" isn't what makes an article worth keeping. "Notability" is what we are looking to establish in articles. Please read the general notability guideline. See also Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Singles and WP:NSONGS. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you Cyphoidbomb but you can see the 12th law or act of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Singles is verified with the song "Gerua" it is a listen by people through TV or Radio network. So I'm talking about to recover those pages. Regards, User:ARNAB22(talk) 12:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such statement. Just being on the radio is not good enough. Anyway, I am not an administrator, so I cannot recover lost articles. BollyJeff | talk 13:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now, you mean this: "The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." That is true, but the other basic requirements apply as well: "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." BollyJeff | talk 13:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]