Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
You have been blocked for your persistent incivility, personal attacks against Blnguyen and incivil edit summaries. Please use this time to cool off and return a better, more civil editor. Rama's arrow02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
In light of this[1]. I do not see how my edit summaries are incivil. Here Blnguyen himself likens messages left on his talk page to "banana's left for him" .And apart from my edit summaries related to banana buckets I do not see any other incivility or personal attacks in my edit summaries.
I request that if the blocking admin has any other aspects of incivil edit summaries, "persistent incivility" and "personal attacks" against Blnguyen that they are highlighted to me Haphar12:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
it also seems that Blnguyen being a seasoned admin can decide for himself when he is harassed enough to warrant a block. See also this post of mine. dab(𒁳)13:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Haphar - "tit for tat" mentality is not an excuse - whatever Blnguyen did or did not do, you are not entitled to respond in such a way. Your overall behavior and repeated posting of such messages presents harassment of Blnguyen and disruption of Wikipedia. All of the comments you've shown me are highly aggressive, provocative and incivil - there is nothing but heated contempt and anger against him, and the subject has nothing to do with wikibusiness. Blnguyen has shown more restraint, but you have taunted him, accused him and ranted against him.
I have been aware of your exchanges with him, and all I have to say is that there is a civil and constructive way to discuss any problems you may have with Blnguyen. You have been warned in the past, so I cannot condone what you've done or let this slide. You and I have had a civil relationship, but I am obligated to do my job. I only request you to make a stronger effort to be civil and cool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC).Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Raman Roy. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Kurt Shaped Box10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not an admin, I can't personally delete the page even if I wanted to. If you don't think that the article should be deleted, follow the directions above. I apologize in advance if I have acted too hastily. --Kurt Shaped Box10:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for advice. My interest in Wikipedia is limited. I got intereseted in Ancient Indian History around August last year (I was trying to get my Dad interested). I checked WP as first source, read lots of litrature on this topic from both sides and discovered that WP is very biased. I think it can be cleaned up if everyone is forced to basic policy like WP:ATT. With Dab, I have found that he has very limited knowledge about this topic, but insists to pushing his POV while blamming everyone who disagrees with him. In 4 months I have not seen him cite any reference correctly and he won't resopond to mediation. So he did not leave me much choice. I don't like his accusations, only time I get involved in religion is birth, marriage and death. If you will see OIT pages, I insisted on removing all religious related POV from that article. To clean up controversial topics, I think first step is enforce WP:ATT and then enforce WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I am going to make this effort as a personal acheivement goal.Sbhushan15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you sir for your insightful comments. I apreciate your concern and I too am looking for someone like you who could guide me in putting the material on the page. I will keep your points in mind while making changes. Thanx again. Chintu rohit08:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am an MBA from IIFT, not IIFM :-), but still, I metion it a lot because it is one of the premier institutes of India. And I did not get your last point. What was it again? Chintu rohit10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not that I know of. Common logic should dictate that if the title is a proper noun or phrase, the old name should be used, while if it is a common noun, the new name should be used.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Imaan Dharam, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
Hello. You recently removed an unreferenced tag I placed on Aan Milo Sajna. I believe this was unnecessary, because, according to WP:CITE, the article does not properly cite its sources. Please do not remove tags unless you have fixed the problem. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello. This is a reply for a comment you recently posted on my talk page. According to WP:CITE, you must include a full citation for every source used on the article. Please leave another message on my talk page if you need further assistance. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie20:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello. This is a reply to your comment here. As you can see here, I never doubted the reliability of the site. I was only saying that, according to WP:CITE, one must include full citations for every source used. As I said above, User:Djsasso provided me with a link to a Wikipedia guideline that permits the ignoring of the full citation policy and instead including only a link. As to my promoting of Wikilove, I believe it is my decission as to how I want to contribute to Wikipedia~and spread Wikilove. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love!19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Firstly, thanks for filling many holes and doing it with infoboxes. I have one request. Could you add two more '' on either side of the titles so that they are bold and italicized? Also, if you want to add {{WP India|cinema=yes|class=stub}}
{{Film|class=stub}}
{{filmimage}} to the talk page it would be useful, but not as important. grenグレン23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I seocnd that -please can you use film|class=stub in the talk pages this way the new hindi film stubs won't be alienated. Nice job filling in the red links though -I hope you like my standardization of the List of Bollywood films - I'll complete it soon enough ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
My feeling is (having a lot of experience) that the emphasis on Hindi films and all Indian films needs to start to develop older films rather than concentrating on those of the 2000s. Stubbing them is a start great but we need to try to even out the quality of the articles. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
HI there. SPECTRE is my organization SMERSH is a real operation from the novels!!
Its great you have set your targets to start all the missing films several months ago I compiled the entire list Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Indian Films which I know several members of the Indian cinema porject have taken under there wing - feel free also to work your way through the list!! and if possible add the {CinemaofIndia} template to the bottom of the pages. I am also thinking about a series of new articles e.g 1999 in Indian film 2002 in Indian film etc. This way an article can provide an ovrivew of all the film industry development by year and also births and deaths of Indian film actors -I';ll propose it to Indian cinema when I have time.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. You do have a point in that one of the definitions of volunteer is such. However, in terms of military, it is well established that a volunteer army is one comprised of no conscripts, but only people who enlist. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volunteer for the definition.
So, while usually, the volunteer means what you have taken it to be, in military terms, its definition is well known and widely used. So IMO, we should leave it as such, since that is the most well known and widely used term even in official publications and analysis papers.
Hope thats OK with you. Otherwise, feel free to revert back to me. Thanks for messaging.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You are making widespread changes to an article without any prior discussion. Kindly do not go against the collaborative spirit. Discuss whatever changes you would like to make in the article on the article talk page, to prevent edit wars such as those which have happened earlier on that page.xC | ☎14:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Haphar, what is your problem? Couldn't you at least be civil in your edits? Now, look what you've done, made us in a edit war. Why couldn't you have discussed on the talk page as other editors have been doing in the past before editing? Anyhow, your edits seem partial to Rani Mukerji's success only. I think there is no actor in the world where he/she has not fared failure. Thus, it is important to integrate that information into the article. The Rs. 5 billion net doesn't just indicate that Rani has drawn all that money but her films have where she has been the lead for the most part. And the importance of a new look is extremely significant for a mention as that makeover made her popular all over again. For Bollywood, glamour is the core of their films and looks and clothes are noticed to a great extent. I believe the career section should not only talk about whether her films were a hit or a flop as those facts are already on the film's page. The article should talk about Rani as an actor if this is an encyclopedia which should note her chronology. For example, what important thing did she do in August 2005, she turned down Namesake. So, films she could not do, must be mentionned since it estimates how busy she was and why she left a great opportunity. Finally, roles are important. The preparation done is needed to be put into the article. So, please do not delete these statements. - User:shez_15
Shez first teach your friend some civility, and it's your friend who went requesting for a page protection rather then look to discuss. ( 2 minutes after posting a request for discussion).
What I have removed is fan gush which was partial to Rani. There is a filmography section for listing her roles. And sorry there is no need for a month by month chronology for any person, or details of makeover which apart from 2 obsessed fans no one even realised. An encyclopedia does not give details of what Abraham Lincoln did in August of 1857, it gives an overview. So whether Rani was busy or without any work in August 2005 is of interest to no one but fans, and this is not a fan site. There is no need for preperation done for roles, she might have sweated blood but then there are a 1000 artists in the world, so what is so unique about Rani's preperation / makeover that it needs a mention ? This topic of adding films has been discussed before with you, by myself, by Zora, by Pa7 and by plumcouch. so stop reinventing the wheel. Haphar08:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Haphar, I'm Shshshsh (or Shahid, as more comfortable for you).
First of all, nice to "meet" you. I must say, I'm aware of your earlier edits among the Zora, Pa_7 and Plumcouch ones on Bollywood articles. I also know that you have a huge number of important edits to your credit, and I appreciate your work here. I find your edits important. I really do. But the same as you explained yourself on the page of Mukerji, you could have done before editing.
Xcentaur, Shez and myself worked on the page for the last few months. We had discussed every minor detail before editing, otherwise, it could have caused to an edit war.
Pa_7 and myself presented our concerns with some content earlier (you can see my message on the talk page of Mukerji). I think the design, fashion and look details are unnecessary, as you do. I also think, saying Mukerji finally declared in an interview with "After Hrs" that she is the top actress in the country is a fan gush.
However, Other things, let's take "The Namesake" for example. Why not? As per Shez, it is a Hollywood film. I thnk it's an honour for an Indian actress being offered a role in Hollywood film. It is quite possible you don't. That's why we have to discuss every little detail.
I can also tell you, I'm freeminded for every Page here. Moreover, I'm not a fan of Mukerji. Zinta is my favorite.
When I firstly edited the page of Mukerji, I received sharp reaction from Shez. We got into a big war of who is better, and let me tell you, I think it's stupid. His conduct toward me was not so nice at the beginning.
I had also lot of discussions with Xcentaur (and differences, which caused to an edit war once), but he is a great editor, and every discussion was in purpose to help the pages. That's why we learnt to discuss every thing on the talk page of each article we edit. Before editing, we introduce our opinions, to prevent an edit war.
I'd like to discuss with you every little detail or information you removed from the page. I hope this edit war won't return once the page is unprotected.
You have some issues. The page has no fangush because I have not been editing it. Xc has. And he's brilliant unlike you who left the page in the middle of arguments and then after a year, seemed to care for no apparent reason. I think you have biases. Because Preity Zinta's page is similar to Rani's. Why didn't you remove the "so-called fangush" over there? I think you either hate Mukerji or you just want attention. If films are not going to be talked in career, then I don't know where they will be. And I'm sorry a list of films in filmography doesn't say everything. A career of an actor is built on films and if we don't talk about them, then maybe we should leave the whole page blank. What say? And if films are your problem, then maybe you should edit over every famous actor who have a lot of films talked about in their career. I suggest you do what you do best, run away from the page like you did last time and revise another page. - shez_15
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, remember me? It has been long since we talked, you kinda just left the Bollywood pages. I saw your edits on the Rani Mukerji page, I agree with some of them but not all of them. Im going to be writing on the Rani Mukerji discussion page tomorrow or later in the week. I've been away because I went on holiday but then I collapsed and blacked out as soon as I came home. I was in hospital for a bit and will have to go through surgury next month. So basically I'll be on and off wikipedia for a bit. I hope User:Plumcouch comes back soon because personally I value her opinion more than anybody else's. Other than that, its nice to see you back on the Bollywood articles. Best regards. -- Pa718:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
HI Haphar. No worries. I added a full rationale to Image:C I D.jpg. If you are having problems with bot proposed deletions on other images just copy and paste the rationale onto each image and delete the proposal tag. To be honest with you I never add a rationale for the posters only for screenshots- the licensing tag I bleeive is enough but you must always state the source of the image - I always include a direct link to the site like I have done on the CID image. Wikipedia has well over 60,000 film posters which are like CID so they won't get deleted if you state the source - as they qulaify for fair use. Hope this helps . Keep up the good work - some of the latest stubs I have seen you create with the posters are now perfect. Regards , your friend ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs10:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:Noorie.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, do whatever you want to. I just don't care anymore. I'm real busy but I'm saying that if you want to be fair, be fair then. Preity and Rani are the two top actresses today and their pages are identical word to word for the most part. So, if you really do want to be a great editor, remove all the fangush over there too. I've maintained both articles with Xc and Shshshsh but if users like you just want to crush all the hard work, then do so, because I just don't see you as a smart unbiased editor. Thanks for fighting for petty issues. "Oh her films are being mentionned in the career section, I feel attacked." No Duh, where else would they be mentionned? Filmography only lists them which is not detailed. And if you do want Rani Mukerji's article to be a featured article, then removing all the facts won't make it one. So, I think you don't want the article to progress. Hmmm, biases? I think so. - shez_15
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey, I saw you change the image for the film to Image:Meremehboob2.jpg, which is fine but you need to follow WP:FURG otherwise it may be deleted. I updated the image with a rationale but you should add the source of where you found the scan to the image information page. If you don't add the rationale and change the images my version will be deleted because they are unused fair use and then yours will be deleted because they have no rationale and then there will be no images at all for the pages. I'd also recommend using more descriptive titles like I did for my image... something like "NAME YEAR film poster" (Mere Mehboob 1963 film poster.jpg) to make it look clean and unconfusing about what the image is.grenグレン12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I see you've been kind of sourcing the articles (you really should link to the image and page, and not just to the site, but, it's not as big of a deal since you're only claiming fair use) but User:BetacommandBot is tagging all images without fair use rationales for deletion so you should add rationales. You can use the guidelines on WP:FURG or add them like I did on your image up above. Just, make sure you add which page it is fair use for. grenグレン18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Raman Roy. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Kurt Shaped Box 10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
