User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 26

Harman Baweja

Hey, I've been unable to move the page back to Harman from Hurman, and I would appreciate if you did this is.

[1] This is where the case is clearly explained. Universal Hero (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston, I thank you for the kind words. It's just too disappointing to be blocked twice within one month when all I'm doing is fighting POV and biasness and going according to consensus and sources. I spend a lot of time discussing matters on talk pages, citing sources, but those who refuse to accept the truth and the facts derived from it cause all the troubles. They of couse get punished, but then those who try to stop them get their hard work thrown brutally at their faces. I'm one of them. I also lost my rollback, which I always used fairly and never misused it or violated its terms of use (I always use the edit summary in cases that are not vandalism). It's hard to see al that happening to me after three years of hard work and great collaboration with other admins against vandalism all for the sake of this project called Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

91.19 is indeed the megastar and had a couple of other socks as well. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FU images

His words echo mine actually. There is indeed a very broad defnination on what or what cannot be used by people on here, I also think "either we accept them or we don't". Its just you seem many articles with like 4 fair use images and then others completely stripped of them and you think, double standards! I know what it generally permitted under fair use claims and I know that Black Kite does not feel the same way as Seraphim in that "we have free images of her in her leisure, we don't need any of her in film". He can surely make this distinction but whether he approves of fair use images in general is a different thing. The claim is based as you may know around critical commentrary with the text. The frist two images would seem to meet this criteria and are not replaceable as free images cannot adequately identify key moments in an actors career. I thought we had agreed this at FAC. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Shelley Conn is HOT!. Check her out here. Her great-grandmother was Burmese and married a British guy in Mumbai. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey =D

Yes, it's been a very long time. I managed to move the page back again subsequently.

I've been floored by work and stuff, so, Wikipedia's slowly moving away from my priorities. Thanx for keeping in touch. Universal Hero (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Thank you for making a report about Cpgiddyup (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Shshshsh. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nishkid found that Bollywood-Turk and UMS was the same guy as well .... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hola! Disappeared? I thought thats what you did? I've been here all the time, just busy thats all! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A smokin hot lady Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats nasty, the old woman deserved it though! Zinta didn't! Zinta doesn't look so modern here eh? Performances in films like this really make the critics who passed her off as an unoriginal prop to visually enhance films look really dumb now. I see they have the whole film on YouTube. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats exactly what I mean, it would clearly silence the critics who once thought she only did fluffy crowd pleasers. I'm glad films like that show people what a good actress she is and how "versatile" she is. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy!! How are you doing?? Sorry for not talking to you for quite a long time!! I have been feeling kinda low for a while!! Over the past couple of days, you have been on an editing spree!! LOL!! Great job!! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG two of my favourite living musicians together!!! Check out Yo Yo Ma and Ennio Morricone here. It is amazing. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen Heaven on Earth!! I saw it quite a while ago!! Zinta's performance is really incredible and I am glad that she is getting all this recognition. She truly deserves it!! What other new movies have you seen recently?? The last "new" movie I saw was Luck by Chance, which IMO, was okay!! It has been quite a long time since I saw a good movie.

BTW... do you know that Zinta will be starring in Main Aur Mrs. Khanna?? Read this!! I am so excited!! After the two Pepsi commercials they were in together and the recent IIFA-FICCI ceremony I hope Ms. Zinta & Ms. Kapoor will be seen sharing screen space together. If they do, this will be the first time for them doing so in a film. (P.S. Great Job on the Filmfare Best Actress Award page!! Maybe later on when we have time, we can work on the other categories.) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it confirmed that Zinta will only be appearing in a guest appearance?? Other people say that apart from Salman, Kareena & Sohail, Zinta will be one of the main leads of the story.

I am really happy to see Kapoor and Zinta bonding. IMO, Saif Ali Khan has played a pivotal role in bringing the two of them together. Don't you think?? ;) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Because you didn't listen to the Yo Yo ma clip thats why LOL! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add Bjork "Its all so quiet" at the end of my shshshsh. LOL. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL why did you remove the image of Hrithik Roshan? I just had to replace it! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know but you didn't replace the free one we have been using! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is quite ironic!! You would expect this to happen with "new" actors/actresses who are quite insecure in the beginning of their career. However, over here, we see two of the biggest Indian actors facing against each other, which in my opinion is quite pathetic. Shahrukh Khan has always been a good sport. Even though if he doesn't win a Filmfare Best Actor Award for his performance in the film, he never badmouths the actor who won it and plus, he doesn't stop attending award functions. Its fine that you don't want to attend award functions but why do you need to badmouth another actor, who is equally as good as you.

BTW, have you watched the trailer of Kambakkht Ishq?? If you did, what did you think of it?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

I thhink I should start preparing the IPL guides for the blog. I think Preity's Punjabis will end up in the bottom 3, maybe even last. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pest

dude, this Yashveer r is quite a pest. he has made unnecessary changes to so many indian as well as american films?? saw ur reverts in indian films and i'm trying to revert as many as possible in the american films. cant v get him blocked?? --Anant Singh (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bloody hell...anyways m glad that a.r. rahman front is calm on the "filmfare award in the lead issue" nowadays...although there r a few who keep including the south FF awards --Anant Singh (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and a mighty nice job on the best actress n actor...was tryin to include the 'age' superlative for best director too but couldnt find out their year of births...hehe...also, for the technical awards which do not have any nominations, should we format it like this? or should we make a table...??? --Anant Singh (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Long time, mate. How have you been?

I've come with some bad news. As I have noticed, you, have had to fight through quite a lot throughout your times. I'm in a bit of a struggle now was well.

A user has returned and is tampering with GA articles, and adapted a "ownage" feeling. Furthermore, he has used threats and is introducing his own rules such as making Indian film articles adapt to US money figures, those which are disencouraged.

I don't know the best way to go about it. Please give me some advice. Universal Hero (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this user was banned indefinitely for uploading copyvio images. Now he continues to do the same in a different ID. He is copy-pasting from websites entire review articles and claims cited. See User:Prin Anwar (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative gross

Is there any archived diff available regarding the discussion about excluding accumulated box office collections?Anwar (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx.

Thanx, mate for the wise words. I've thankfully been cleared of the accusations. So, what's up? I probably won't be active for the next couple of months either, need to spend time revising. =D

I really want to get a Bollywood article up there again, and this summer hopefully I'll find time to do Aishwarya Rai or Kamal Haasan or someone properly.

Thanx, for not quitting, by the way. It's always a pleasure to have a long-term editor.

Universal Hero (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks, like I'm in more trouble. User:Gamekeeper has nominated me for a different case. the long slog happens again :(. Universal Hero (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hey!!! How are you Mr. Shshshsh?? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea but I'm quite frankly very pissed off with the way people keep fussing about infoboxes and templates and come to a "consensus" between a handful of people. I also thought the awards section was entirely appropriate given that it is shrunk down anyway. They also deleted my American films by year template, evne though there was a consensus to use a merged template from the old decade templates. What concerns me is that people don't seem to give a monkeys about developing our content, they just sit around fussing about links and trivial boxes. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well part of the importance of wiki is as a quick reference. A summary of awards in the infobox serves a quick purpose as quick research and saves ploughing through the article. Aside from that people have spent a lot of time adding awards to infoboxes. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I said if they made their decision they haven't sorted out the huge mess it will involve to clean it up thats what I meant. I didn't say "OH I love this change shall I organise a bot for you?". LOL.I've explained exactly how I feel about it, I think a summary of the most important awards is fine, I am more concerned about the way people continue to fuss over templates and infboxes and the way in which a small group make decisions on here rather than editing and discussing what really counts on here thats all. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I now distance myself from WP:Films and related discussions and no longer have them on my watchlists because its a waste of time talking about things. I can't remember one discussion with WP:Films where my view actually led to something being kept. Even where some people agree on something an it is done e.g the decade American templates fed into one template, several months down the line the template which a group of us decided upon was nuked by another small group at TFD. Net result:A complete waste of time. Wiki policy and discussion pretty much sucks on here, the way things operate is a great failure and pretty much a joke. The grey area of what or what is notable and what images can be used fairly and which can't is equally as vague, this is also a failure because different people have different views and perspectives and some people try to brandish criteria according to themselves. You can't run an encyclopedia of this world scale with "consensus". I wonder what the people you use wikipedia and sintance themsevles from editing or discussing it think rather than the people who sit around it fussing think. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote the keep it but I would suggest removing some of the rather lower key other awards and stick to the most important ones in the industry as a summary. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As said I've been busy! But believe me no matter high your edit count is around here people don't care and will still call me lazy as someone did over my afd of Counterpart Caribbean yesterday. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page

No it wasn't a joke. I was away for a wekk. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get my IPL preview series up next week. Already written up one for Preity. I think Punjab could be one of the bottom two or three teams.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:ACTOR

I just want to say this clearly without posting on the talk page. I would be very obliged if you would stop commenting on what you think I'm feeling or making comments on your perception of my motives. I really think this process would be much smoother if you could find a way to stop saying "don't make this personal", which I have not, or telling me to "calm down". Each time you do that, you do make it sound quite personal and I find that unacceptable. How many editors have spoken up to basically say to quit making it sound as if I were in the wrong, or that the process was wrong, and to stop making me out to be a bad guy. Each time you say "calm down" or "don't make it personal", you only reinforce that at least you think I did. Your last comment makes no sense - "But I wanna know what way you want this to be done, with or without Razzie awards, with or without "other awards" - that's something I'd prefer others to decide." What are you saying? You don't care what I think about the outcome and I should shut up?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. That's why I chose to comment about it here rather than on the page. I've felt fairly picked on especially after the comment was posted by Orane, which is why I didn't post on the page for a day or two. I mostly don't mind the major awards - the Academy Awards, BAFTAs, Golden Globes, SAG, etc. Actually, none of the awards that had its own parameter because that seemed to include the major awards from each country. However, it was the "other awards" section that was getting out of control and was encroaching on the articles. I think those awards are addressed sufficiently in filmographies. I do feel very strongly about the Golden Raspberry Awards, and I'll state it frankly - they have no place in a listing of legitimate awards given by the industry/critics etc. The Razzies are essentially mean-spirited parodies and there is no control or process for determining who gets them or, mostly, legitimacy in their purpose. I've seen actors win Razzies for the same roles they've been nominated for awards for actual merit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Hey Shahid!! How are you doing buddy? Have you heard about the strike that is going on in India?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really busy with University and work!! Sometimes I feel like I hardly have time to relax!! :( Oh well.. the good thing is that the former will be done by the end of next month!! :) BTW do you know what this strike is really about?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait.. I am confused!! By producers.. do you mean the people who produce the Bollywood films?? I thought the situation was the other way around!! Isn't it the multiplex people are going on strike?? Here see this!!

I should be able to edit more frequently from June onwards :(( This basically means I have about a month and a half left. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... I thought it was the multiplex people going on strike as the producers demanded they pay 50% of the revenues cinemas made on a film regardless of how it performed at the box office. BTW which money do the producers use to calculate how much a film has earned at the box office?? Furthermore, did the producers always demand 50% of the revenues cinemas made or was this a recent decision that they made due to the recession?? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bollywood

Hey, did you notice this article Bollywood and plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.138.252 (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, thank you very much indeed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actors

Emailed. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think they are going to revert the change? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem I see with the current situation is it will entail a HUGE cleanup as it stands to start removing all the contents of the tampered infobox. A lot of editors will click editor and see big lists of awards at the top and wonder why it isn't showing. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it should be modified rather than completely taken away. A bot to remove the excess awards but I think removing it entirely is taking the easy way out. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Easter honey bunny? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know I don't like whom? Cate Blanchett and Katherine Hepburn are amongst my favourite actresses of all time!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've liked all of her performances, Elizabeth was great. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be involved in discussion, but because I'm in my exam period, don't have the time for lengthy or circular discussions. My proposal is that we should leave it the way it was before, with all the awards —major and minor (even from various critics circles), except the Razzies. However, I'd gladly support those who want only the major awards. Give me a buzz whenever I'm needed there, but I'm too busy in real life to engage people at the moment. Orane (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, from looking at the discussion there only you and User:Journalist are against complete removal. Even Blofeld who I think was first against it, now kind of agreed or understood the reasons for removal. His comment from a few days ago was the reason I removed it from the articles. Because with some articles, like Steven Spielberg it did looked like a bit of a mess after the template change. It looks like the discussion is pretty finished actually. Garion96 (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartive might not mind the major awards back, but I do think she prefers complete removal. I also really can't understand why you prefer it. It makes the article and infobox looks like a mess. Plus, major awards, who decides that? For me the Acadamy Awards are major, the Filmfare Awards to me are not. I am pretty sure you won't agree with that. :) Also to quote pc78, content belongs in the article, not in a infobox (and certainly not hidden in the infobox). The awards are removed now for a week or so, and the number of people against is still basically two. That also indicates that not many editors are against it. Garion96 (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact that Bette Davis is a two times acadamy award winner is so important, it should be stated in the lead. The awards were adding real slowly to the infobox and even then some people complained. And that was a very slow process, people usually don't mind slow processes, it is not too noticable. Now with one big step, all the awards are gone, which was a big deal. Still only two editors are against it and only 4 or 5 editors have come to the talk page because they noticed the removal. To me that says that the majority doesn't care about the removal. Garion96 (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Bette Davis's two Academy Awards are notable and worth mentioning, so I have edited the lead section to show this. The ten nominations were actually more significant than the two wins, although the infobox never showed that. I think this is a good example of the lead section being more useful than the infobox, but you were right in noting the absence. Rossrs (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]