User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 20

Please stop

I had a read of WP:RS. There is NO indication that these sites are not necessarily permitted. I'm not doing that to bother you. I wan't to improve the articles, as I believe you do. And boxofficeindia.com is the official site of box office figures in India. It is used in a featured article - Lage Raho Munnabhai. I started a discussion on the talk page. Let's collaborate. We can't continue like this. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for everything. Let's try to be nice to each other and discuss things without unpolitness. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm now primarily working on Zinta's page. No bollyspice, no santabanta, no blogs, no free mexicans, no preityzinta.com. All of these were addressed. Apunkachoice is reliable, I'll later provide sources to support this claim. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found an evidence for boxofficeindia.com being reliable! Please see Indiatimes and TOI mentioned it on several occasions, writing "According to boxofficeindia.com..." - [1][2]. I think if it is mentioned in reputable sites which use it as a source for themselves, it is definitealy reliable. What do you say? Oh yes please give a more informative explanation for your oppose on the FAC. It needs an update. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm yourself now!!!!

I won't tolerate such a disgusting talking manner. Calm yourself immediatelly. And don't you dare warning me because I was unblocked because of YOU. Because YOU didn't discuss things like you do now. Which was UNFAIR so don't speculate. I don't apreciate my block being an issue to anger expressions.

I removed Blofeld's comment because I talked to him already regarding this, and removed every site ehich is not in the article anymore. I hope for you that you will talk to me with more formality.

And please don't call me Shahid, only my friends here call me Shahid, and only editors I respect. For you - I'm Shshshsh. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How dare you revert my own page? Do you find it offensive? Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove your comment. Just part of it, removing sites which were proved to be reliable (apunkachoice) and sites which were removed from the article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

This has been questioned many times -yes I can confirm that I contacted the director of caledonian publishing and received permission and if you check the system verification you'll see we are permitted to use these images under 3.0. PLease confirm with User:Videmus Omnia or User:Riana who overlooked it. And yes we are trying to avoid watermarked images where possible. Under this license we are indeed permitted to crop images and use commercially. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Please check the OTRS system here which will indeed confirm this 3.0 agreement is legal ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually on the Bollywood site there is clear confirmation that wikipedia is permitted to use the images under a 3.0 license and in doing so realises it is allowing them to be used commercially on other sites or whatever for all. Admin made certain this was correct before finalising it. Now would you like the email address of the director to confirm this yourself? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware, but I also am not exactly a beginner on here and according to this posted to me by Raul654 yesterday I happen to be the most productive editor on english wikipedia. Whether you think this irrelevant or not, I'd appreciate you trying to work with me to try to improve this and sort out any ill feeling this has generated. Surely you could see that if you put weeks of work into something and spent a lot of time trying to find free images and putting an article through a long GA and A nomination and you felt this was in danger of all being blown away and reverted back to square 1 this would be worrying to you? I'd appreciate your thoughts and yes I have attempted to try to address some of the POV issues with quotes and have also expressed concern about too much reliance on rediff.com as a primary reference. PLease respond to me so we can become familiar with each other properly and resurrect this situation. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My concern is too much reliance on rediff.com and boxofficeIndia.com particularly as the latter doesn't have a home link on it for verification. Encyclopedia articles need to be complied from a variety of sources with references that can be fully verified but scanning the text and the references these are cited too often as are often used to justify whole paragraphs. Now Im not even debating the reliability of these sites -I believe they are but I feel we need to introduce some negative comments on her films and introduce a number of different and reliable sources' and try to address it neutrally for each film rather than conceding it was critically acclaimed. If rediff.com is a fan site then this is flawed, but quoting professional film critics isn't. I would like to see some of the reactions to the film neutrally, Surely there must be other sites which adequately give different reviews of her films. But is does seem that the internet is dominated by fan sites. PLease respond if you agree thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you may consider the article selective in its use of quotes and text to glorify her but I believed this was fact and indeed vast majority of her performances have been praised cosiderably. Now if you have information that some of her performances have actually not been as acclaimed as appears I would most certainly like to know and I think it is vital to give a neutral view of her career and provide fact. I am not Indian and am not aware of the kind of response she's had but I was sure there shuold be some negative quotes in there also to give a more balanced view- I was judging by Internet sources -which you are now questioning. I apologise if I appeared rude earlier but for its to pass GA and A with flying colours and receive 25 supports for FA then get it knocked back to a B after along nomination process you must see how it came as a shock ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is though, we need to write a full encyclopedia article neutrally but if there are no sources which can be used to write it adequately and in a balanced way how can it be possible? It would be a very good idea to give a list of websites that are considered to be reliable and neutral and not a fan site and attmept to build it around this. However it appears that removing any of those references which aren't seen as reliable leaves us with a strictly limited and basic reference system and that much of the article would have to be removed as a result. No we can't based on article on fan sites with clear POV but there unfortunately doens't appear to be many if any sites which can be used here which meet the criteria, especially on a Bollywood related article when much online details are generated by the fan base anyway. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:JasmineSimhalan-kalaripayatt-silambam.gif

I have no interest in this image at all, but please stop labeling it as a speedy deletion candidate when it is not. Please remove the watermarking or use WP:IFD to delete it instead of wasting administrator time by insisting on the wrong process. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I examined the image, it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (and the "watermark" problem could be solved without deleting the image). If you think images like this should be speedily deleted although they can be saved, you can propose that at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. And it is a waste of time if you go admin shopping and can't accept a decision. Kusma (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya

I didn't revert even one single edit. Check it. To revert, is to restore the article to its previous version. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm afraid, you are mistaken regarding what constitutes a revert. You dont have to restore the article into its previous version, for making a revert. Please see WP:3RR for more details. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 19:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thelka Research

Hello,

Why are you editing my links? What is your motivation to do that? It is comprehesive research and with an actual video footage? Why are you trying to cover it up? It is relevant to the page.

If you've any valid reasons, let me know. Let us talk about it. But this is something public should know about it.

Krish iyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnaniyer (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to collaborate

Hello Sarvagnya! I came with peace.

Sometimes I'm going through our prior discussions, and the only conclusion I get is, that we behave ourselves as four-years-old boys. It's a pitty, how much more so when we are experienced editors on Wikipedia.

I talked to two editors about boxofficeindia.com and they accepted it as a reliable source (one of them is an admin). So apart from that, I went to the Shahrukh Khan page, and removed many non-RS references. Some of them were replaced with reliable sources, and other ones were removed (they're actually unneeded because some references are not needed at all).

My request from you is, please go to the discussion page and provide all the sources which seem to be non-RS. It's the most important thing. I can't bear fact tags. I prefer doing things without stress. Just as you did, do now. Give titles like this: timesofindia.com, rediff.com, thehindu.com, telegraph.com etc. I'll work on it (I think that there are enough sources for Shahrukh Khan on the net, if not above and beyond).

My decision is to collaborate. Tell me, what do you think? Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Four year olds? Well, next time please speak for yourself and leave others out. I have no other way to put it, but your behaviour has been most despicable. You repeatedly assert that you want to collaborate.. but your actions are the exact opposite. You keep saying that you're "sad", but the fact remains that it is you who have driven several editors here(including me) to despair and "sadness". I've given you a list of non-RS sources many times already. Did you already forget that you vandalised my list on INB? Anyway, I think my list is still available on INB. Please go through it. And continue the discussion about this issue on INB or on an appropriate subpage/section of the Bollywood project. Stop fragmenting discussions and repeating things on different talk pages.

As for boxofficeindia, I respect Spartaz and Nichalp's opinions but I respectfully disagree. You still havent told me who runs that site or what their credentials are. All you have shown me is trivial mentions of the site in couple of RS sources. That is not enough to conclude that a source is RS. That isnt how it works. For example, Reuters is widely cited in RS sources.. but that is not what makes Reuters a RS source. Reuters will be RS even if nobody cited them. Similarly random blogs and websites do routinely get mentioned in RS sources. That doesnt mean those blogs suddenly become RSes overnight. I am sure many people would agree with me.

"I think that there are enough sources for Shahrukh Khan on the net, if not above and beyond"

That is exactly my point! Glad that you're beginning to see the light. I have repeated it enough times already that you dont need boxofficeindia and bollyspice and bollywhatever to write articles about shahrukhkhan and amitabh bacchan! anybody who follows indian movies and indian movie sites knows the reliability of those fansites and the boxoffice figures they quote or the gushing reviews they publish.. if you're pretending that they're RS, you're only kidding yourself.

Anyway, if you really want to collaborate, I'll be the last person to turn you away. But your actions have to be in tune with your words. You cant keep violating 3rr over and over and over again and run around claiming that you're collaborating or that you're sad. And dont tell me that you havent violated 3rr. A revert is not when you revert to a prev version. A revert is when you undo in whole or in part another editor's edit. Now dont ask me for proof or to quote verbatim from policy.. just go and read WP:3RR or ask an admin on the 3RR board. Any further comments from me on the question of sources will be on INB or wherever you decide that the discussion should continue. So you decide. Just dont keep leading people from one talk page to another. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And oh.. btw.. I request you to please go through WP:POV, WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK, WP:OTHERSTUFF and {{tone}} before you continue editing these articles or accusing other editors of bad faith. Sarvagnya 22:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tried to be nice. I said I came here with peace. You don't want, and it's your problem.

As for me being sad - it's definitely not your business. Please try to talk about matters. Don't involve yourself in my "sadness". I see you are after me all the time, interesting and to be honest - laughable...:D

I didn't vandalize your INB, I was removing sites which were addressed, and removed Blof's comment, which we had discussed before that.

I haven't violated 3rr rule "over and over again" even not "in parts", dude. I was addressing comments. If you see, one editor added some tag saying that the ref doesn't say that the movie was a surprise hit, so I removed the tag and the surprise hit altogether. Some editors didn't look with enough observation, didn't notice that I'd removed the surprise hit, and projected it like they wanted to (reverting, undoing in parts or whatever), coming to their own conclusions. You are after me all the time, that's why you think so too. You are the one who assumed bad faith on me. I also noticed your reversions on Kaveri River Water Dispute... mmm interesting..

We are now working on these refs, and not adding fact tags, just replacing them with RSes. I'm aware of these plicies so don't pretend as a better editor than me, referring me to them.

As for boxfficeindia, I also respect Spartaz and Nichalp, and if they gave me their support, I'm not interested in your opinion. Because it's a fact. You said, "Similarly random blogs and websites do routinely get mentioned in RS sources." - We are not talking only about mentioning them, but using them as sources of information. The RSes clearly say, "According to boxofficeindia".

And the last thing, why I came here actually (don't tell me "Stop fragmenting discussions and repeating things on different talk pages. I didn't come here for that at all. I'm not here to discuss reliability of sites.): Please always turn to the article talk page, and list all of your so called non-RSes there, as you did before on the INB page. Don't just add fact tags, removing the refs. Because, first of all, it can be subjective, and editors can prove that some sites are actually RSes. So please, introduce your concerns on the talk pages. Then, other editors, including me, will try to address them, if your concerns are approved as factual. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: Don't bother to write a reply. It was a request. Byeee... Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing a cited quote

Sarvagnya, could you explain why you changed the quoted text in the citation in this edit? That too with a seemingly innocuous edit summary. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't explained that change, Sarvagnya. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian cinema

Look I don't know what your goals are for Indian cinema or for wikipedia but coming from an experienced editor your editing over the last few weeks does not appear to be constructively helping the actual content of wikipedia at all. Sure we should root out bad sources and address the tone of articles to improve article quality but I haven't seen any exmaples of where your editing has actually improved article content rather than just identifying what you think is wrong. Time and time again I am shocked at some of the things you have done, and I don't know how you can stand there and tell people to assume good faith. Just what will make you happy? Would you rather see all of the articles eroded and any images whatsover deleted which people have spent a long time trying to help others with? Do you think this helps improve this for everybody? I'd rather you got on with creating and adding good content like Abbakka Rani. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to ask what your purpose is with such edits and why you think they are beneficial to the encyclopedia. The thing is your string of edits to these articles and requesting User:Riana at the commons to "do the honours" when you know she made the agreement is not helpful and certianly can not be seen as constructive. Judging by some of your past helpful edits and new articles I can see you are a resourceful guy who could be doing a lot of good but I fail to see what your intentions are here. I agree that tone and references need to be addressed in certian articles but I don't think this is a reason to try to degrade articles for everybody. As for pressuring Riana and questioning her ability about the image license this is also unacceptable. Screenshots or promo photos cannot be used and this does need to be written into the agreement. This should not be a reason to axe a potential thousands of images which are actually theres just because it doens't meet your standards. I want to get on with my work, but every day I log in and find you have gone one step further again and again. You don't just nuke things according to your wishes. When is it going to stop? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Right I've just speedied about 10 or so images which are questionable as they are either screenshots or promotional shots . This site is owned by Caledonian publishing , a company worth $100 millions of dollars . They employ an agency of photogtaphers based in Mumbai which deal primarily with the Bollywood film industry. Excluding screenshots and obvious promo photos this agreement is valid ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The professional images are quite distinguishable from their own images and these have now been removed. I seriously doubt there is some criminal activity going on which you implied, why would somebody from a multi 100 million pound comany Caledonian Publishing claim ownership of most of its images if it didn't? Nobody is getting advertising. They are just trying to help this project plain and simple. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They're hawking screenshots from movies as if they own it.. arent they? Hell, they've not only released screenshots from movies on CC-2/3 but they've even watermarked them! Very honourable thing for a multi million pound company, would you say? Is that how they made their millions? And oh.. dont tell me they're simply helping the project.. they have their ugly watermarks on all of them. And if watermarks arent advertisement, I dont know what they are. Remove all the watermarked images, remove all the screenshots, get them to stop claiming copyright over things they obviously dont own (like screenshots from movies) and then we'll talk. Unless they stop claiming rights over things they dont own, we can never take them seriously.. they're just damned liars to me. and since you keep repeating it so many times, can you link me to where you got the "multi million" pound trivia... and is that all you know about them.. or do u know more? Like who heads it.. etc.,. Sarvagnya 16:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Look that Bollywood article did have some misleading statements -thankyou for identifying them. Statements such as "Bollywood is generally making a breakthrough in the west" or whatever it was is a dreadful generalization to make in an encyclopedia article - its not about that -we both know there is some bad text in a number of articles. Many of the Bollywood articles need serious work to address comments and bad references and if this improves and eventually builds content this would be ideal. However, it is the way that you conduct yourself and your course of action that I am concerned with with little regard to the concerns and protests of others time and time again and it is clear you look on many editors and their work with disgust and in a condesending manner.. Now I have done no real editing on Bollywood articles at all, in fact my only editing there has been with adding film posters or templates and cast sections on existing film articles rather than actors. However terrible you think articles are, you just don't make decisions to nuke articles with no consensus with other editors and however terrible you think an article is ,you most certinaly should not discourage anybody who attempts to add constructive content to this encyclopedia. You keep claiming good faith, but how can your continous disregard for the genuine efforts of hard work , whether it is in article content (or with images which I helped with) be acceptable.? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think you could help contructively do a lot to help wikipedia and these articles if you showed other editors a bit of respect and listened to others whatever the meaning of your name is. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Trust me if I saw that you were editing like you did back in June or July with new articles I would be congratulating you and actually encouraging you rather than reporting you - in fact I have offered encouragment to users such as Amargg before for good new articles which other editors rarely bother to thank people for. I'd rather I could get on with my editing elsewhere and not have to worry about entire articles being axed or images which I worked hard for wikipedia to use and to really help people being deleted. I didn't have to put so much effort into sorting it out and I don't expect the owner of that site to have to keep justifying himself for the upteenth time. If you got on with rewriting these articles professionally when you aren't too tied down with life, and showed other editors an ounce of respect or discussed major actions in a respectable fashion I would be the first to approve of you rather than seeming to oppose you. Just think about this, you aren't dealing with a fool here, you know this. Saludos. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)