User talk:Bollyjeff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

talk page conventions[edit]

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)

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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)


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? Face-smile.svgSsven2 speak 2 me 17:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(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 Face-smile.svg. 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)
@Kailash29792: Oops, sorry, my bad. Didn't know he had a son. Changed it now. Face-smile.svgSsven2 speak 2 me 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
I haven't worked on the article it. 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)
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)
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)

Vikram filmography[edit]

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)

Well? -- Sriram speak up 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kajol filmography[edit]

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)

Sanam Teri Kasam is a 2009 film.[edit]

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. -

Your edit:-

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


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)

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

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

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

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

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


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)


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)

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)
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)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Enthiran/archive1[edit]

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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Share your opinion[edit]

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