Talk:Paoli Dam

File:Paoli Dam at Success bash of 'Hate Story' (4).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Paoli Dam at Success bash of 'Hate Story' (4).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Paoli Dam at Success bash of 'Hate Story' (4).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done This image was saved! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

It might be a good idea to contact Ms Paoli Dam on facebook and request her for an image of hers that she authorizes wikipedia to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What an idea Sir Ji! Have you tried to contact her in Facebook? --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you are a new user, welcome to Wikipedia, and let me answer it again (this time little bit more seriously and in details): some people find contacting subject (i.e. a person) contacting in Facebook, Twitter a good idea, but I don't think so, because celebrities are always flooded with friend requests and messages in social networking site like Facebook. So, you can never contact them. One may try to contact through subject's website. But, from my experience– for at least 90% emails you'll send you'll not hear back anything. Thankfully this subject (Dam) is a national celebrity now, so, we don't think we'll face trouble to collect her photos. --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You see, one of the Paoli Dam facebook pages mentions that it is a sponsored page and it gives excerpts of this very wikipedia aricle on her, and it credits wikipedia. So on reciprocity principle I think that page can be fruitfully contacted because it is surely run on her behalf by a public relations team. Tht's what a sponsored page means, I should think! - Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

done: following message posted on http://www.facebook.com/paolidamofficial at about 01:50 UTC 1 Aug 2012: (Lqac Waz is my facebook page, that name is arrived at by dropping vowels, reversing and rot13ing my name)) " Lqac Waz Photo of Ms Paoli Dam requested for Wikipedia entry on her. There is some confusion there whether there are copyright issues with the photo they are using now: see 'File:Paoli Dam at Success bash of 'Hate Story' (4).jpg Nominated for Deletion' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paoli_Dam.

I suggest and also suggested on wikipedia:Paoli Dam: talk page that the best thing would be if Paoli or her agents who manage such things, sends a photo of her choice and authorise wikipedia to use it. Then she can be represented, in the biographical article on her, by a photo she prefers to be represented by.

Thanks for reading, Manoj Pandey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manojpandeyanarchocommunist http://www.facebook.com/lqac.waz "

So now the ball is in Ms Dam's court as to whether she wants a photo of hers here of her choice. Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A reference is needed that Paoli Dam faced 'criticism' for doing a cunnilingus scence for the film Chtrak. Until there is such a reference, we should only note the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 23:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

the article looks balanced now. 21:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs)

Nude scene in Chatrak section!

That Nude scene is Chatrak section is written like cheap gossip with wrong formatting (first letter capital in every word) and should be either merged or removed! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I started to rewrite the section, in normal English and with a less excitable tone. But I found that it did not give the name of the film – without which the section's relevance is doubtful. So I deleted the section instead. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work. And the reference which was added here is not reliable too. There is an article on the film they are talking about, but, it is written there in acceptable tone and manner! Thanks! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored mention of the sex scene (ok, nude sex - isn't sex normally nude?) but much shorter and in better English. Readers who want more details can follow the Mushrooms link. Maproom (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(ok, nude sex - isn't sex normally nude?)

Not always in films!

The portion is in much better condition now! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if source/s could be added in, ASAP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What controversy?

[IMO The sequence is beautiful,liberating and antipornograhic, but you dont have to agree in order toto read on.]

What controversy? I hereby say that Mitt Romney is maybe not all there, so should Mitt Romney article should now mention controversy about Mitt Romney's sanity? Or every article about women who happen not to usually wear the hijab (e.g. Nicole Kidman, Angelina Joilie, my [female] partner, et al {;/) have a section saying 'her dress is controversoal to the taliban'?) Kidman and Joile articles dont mention this 'hijab controversy', because there is no controversy unless you are really nitpicking. Ditto for the brilliant Ms Paoli Dam's cunnilingus sequence in the film Chatrak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you this anonymous editor who has been adding this portion continuosly in the article? And sign talk page with four tildes ~~~~ --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I am not anonymously, and didnt add that. I wont increase irrelevancies by adding more irrelevency - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article and not a record of drunken brawls as it were, iygwim.

Tito, you have helped improve this entry, I am on your side on this one, dammit! And no, I sign when I edit anything connected to Paoli Dam (inter alia); even if I misss 4 tildes I stay logged in so 'manoj-pandey-anarchocommunist'-as-author shows up.

I hope that clears things up somewhat. Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify more, someone was continuously adding this portion in the article. We removed it because of its i) hysterical tone ii) formatting error iii) unreliable ref and (actually) rewrote the portion (and we had to protect this article too). If after August 25 (when the article'll be unprotected automatically), that anonymous editor returns and re-inserts this portion we'll have bit hard time (see article's edit summary like this where we mentioned the reason that this is already added in article.) And now you have removed that portion too. Let's see what happens! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool. And not to worry tito, this one seems handleable easily enough. -:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 23:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

forgot to sign again, sorry - but SineBot signed so it is good enough for me, but it seems it confuses others so: I hereby sign: Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so easy! They are back! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone should co-operate here! They have added this portion again. I have reverted twice which have been undone, I'll not revert it for the third time now! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added this short portion which is much much much better than what those IP editors are writing to defend our claim that this portion is already added. Please don't remove the portion until this the weather comes down to normal temperature! --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

to tito: not to worry; I for one will follow your advice and let it be. After all, *any* page may have much more ridiculous vandals after it; but our strength is: vandals - trolls is probably more appropriate to desrcibe their behaviour - dont have staying power. You're right, let's play it cool. [Fact of life: some males are so deficient in s grey matter that they compensate by thinking with their . um.. members/genitalia - the anglo saxon word 'cock' is/should be perfectly respectable as Eric Partidge argued; so let me rephrase it: they compensate by thinking with their cocks. And some females have internalised patriarchy so much that they think with their - let's say - virtual cocks. So that's what is happening here; I am a brit so if these people were in britain I could pull strings and get justified abso decrees (anti-social behaviour order; court decree, which puts them under police watch and at the minimum a talking-to by the judge etc) - but: Welcome to the real-virtual-combo world! :-) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign again [above commmunication to Tito Dutta. Sinebot did it for me, but looks like here leaving signing to sinebot is concerned bad etiquette, so: sorry for forgetting to sign; and let the following sign be deemed as signing both this and the prev bot-autosigned para. Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You were requested not to remove the summarized portion, since we are writing it in our edit summary that this portion is already added in article. --Tito Dutta ✉ 22:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Minor correction signed: Tito Dutta ✉ 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Tito Dutta, I misunderstood. Not that I am reading-challenged; but I was in a very stress state when I read that (in real life i am involved with pro - julian assange organising activities also; that is much more serious - he is in *real* danger - see recent NYT op-ed article by Oliver stone and Micheal Moore). Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

@Manojpandeyanarchocommunist: I have reverted your edit since the earlier was better and also it was sourced. I don't think there is any need to remove the one used on the article and re-write it again. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

relevence of religious community that Paoli Dam's parents belongs to?

The early life section begins:

"Dam was born in Kolkata to a Bengali Hindu family."

First, how relevant is this?????????????

Second, it is ambiguous and unreferenced: there is no reference to a majority of the family she was into, saying 'we are followers of hinduism.' [Even then it would be irrelevant unless it was made clear we were talking of 'community' in a technical sense, not belief].

• I* was born to atheist marxist activist parents who Happened to have 'hindu' names, whatever they names. So was renowned British historian, activist, novelist and filmmaker Tariq Ali, except that they happened to have 'muslim' names, whatever that means.

The bigger point to 'wikipedians' as a hardworking middlebrow [see Virginia Woolf] cult is: are you even capable of seeing the problem? Do you want wikipedia to stay middlebrow with vague aspirations towards 'getting better sometime before the Second Coming of Christ', or do want to gradurally degenerate to trash? It is entirely your choice and frankly the rest of the world wont care too much either way.

Proud non-wikipedian;

Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2012

paoli dam can give nude sex scene but we can't write about it

some guys are removing posts about her Nude Sex Scene In Chatrak(2011)COME ON paoli dam CAN GO FULL NUDE AND GIVE 2.5 Minute Oral Sex Scene(Receiving)Erotically Moaning And Feeling Orgasms BUT WE CAN'T Write About It? What's This?This Is India Not Pakistan.That Erotic Nude Sex Scene Defines paoli dam and That Scene Is Very Important Part Of Her Representing 'Awakened Sexual Needs' Of Indian Woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.195.135 (talk • contribs)

I have reported it here and posted a notice in your current IP address talk page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• IP range 122.163.192.0/21 (2048 addresses) has been blocked for 24 hours! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Edit paoli dam some highly conservative people protected the actress paoli dam page because we want to add some information about her hghly explicit sex scene in film chatrak please i sincerely request please unprotect that page,please i have verified links for edits.

Edit request on 8 October 2012

paoli dam can givea sexually explicit nudesex scene but can't we write about it?that's not freedom of speech in wikipedia? some highly conservative people taliban mentality people protected the actress paoli dam page because we want to add some information about her hghly explicit sex scene in film chatrak please i sincerely request please unprotect that page,please i HAVE Verified Links For The Edits Which We Will Make.

122.163.209.128 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you want this page unprotected please leave a message with user EdJohnston (talk · contribs), the administrator who protected this page. Please note that comparing Wikipedians to the Taliban will likely not get you very far. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2012

paoli dam can givea sexually explicit nudesex scene but can't we write about it?that's not freedom of speech in wikipedia?

(Non-administrator comment) By freedom of speech do you mean adding some unsourced/poorly sourced information in camel case and hysterical tone (see details above)? --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

NO By Freedom Of Speech I Mean Writing THE TRUTH In The Words Of Paoli Dam Herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.194.248 (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh, again same questions! Read above why your edits are not encyclopedic. "In The Words Of Paoli Dam Herself"– why o of "of" capital? Why are you writing in title case? --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: It's already included in the article, plus you haven't provided any reliable sources. BEFORE using the {{edit semi-protected}} template please establish a consensus through discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2012

please allow me to make the verified edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎122.163.232.85 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 October (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012

please unprotect actress paoli dam page as some very orthodox people are preventing me from making an edit about her sex scene in film chatrak(2011)please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎122.163.195.206 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please Unlock This page as i have to add very important information regarding her sex scene in chatrak(2011)which some conservative people didn't want me to.