User talk:Nichalp

About this page...

• POST A NEW MESSAGE

Archives
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54

• Please do not reply to topics more than 3 days old. I may miss it. If you wish to revive an old topic of discussion, copy the entire text of that topic (including any WikiSyntax) and put it at the bottom by following the edit link above.
• I will usually reply on your talk page
• I usually archive every 15 days or if the page size > 30kb.

---

Bullying on the Preity Zinta nomination

I have to say that this vote appears invalid by Sarvagnya and is done out of spite following a confronation on the article -please see Shahrukh Khan history. It looks very suspicious to me that the above user came across this page after checking the contributions of Shahid following the edit war on that page and visisted the page specifically to give the "strongest oppose possible" -I find this utterly unacceptable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If valid, an oppose is an oppose. There is nothing legally wrong in his oppose, so I don't know why you say it's invalid. Using extra adjectives does not make it any more different. Sarvagnya evaluated the page for reliable sources and found it to be full of unreliable citations; for that matter even I had commented on the same. Sarvagnya has been a proponent of reliable sources for a long time, (which is good for wikipedia), so please assume good faith and see the contributions he is making for the betterment of wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem a bit of a cooincidence that he posted his opinion within an hour of an edit war with Shahid on the SRK page? ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He has every right to oppose regardless of the edit war. Sarvagnya is correct in removing dubious references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My rename

Thanks I suppose. But was there a particular reason you did it? I had asked to wait on the rename. I'm not furious or anything, but I wasn't sure this was the name I wanted. Especially now that this was my second rename, and a third probably wont happen. — Soleil (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll sleep on it, and see if I would rather have one of the other names I was toying with. Thanks. As a side note, I used to not see the fundraising notice at all. But since the rename, I've seen the [dismiss] or [show more] things. Do you know if this has to do with the rename, or if there was some coding thing that changed? — Soleil (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy im Mumbai

Hi Nichalp. Happy Diwali. Perhaps you may have seen this: Jimmy in IIT, Mumbai. probably you are in Mumbai and may take a lead in organizing, depending on your free time, an exclusive meet-up of Jimmy with Wikipedians. Kind Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BoxofficeIndia.com

Hey dear Nichalp! I've removed many unreliable sites from Zinta's page. santabanta, bollyspice, preityzintaonline, blogs, free mexican, etc and placed reliable sources most of which come from TOI or Rediff etc.

I followed your instruction to get an indication to this or another site being reliable and looked for it in reliable sites. And I found it! See please 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? Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are not interested to reply. I may have been a bit rude and stressed when Zinta was a FAC, so I apologize, if I wasn't cool. And it was not promoted, so I think you are calmed now. If you see that, please reply to my message (above). My best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Hi Nichalp, I’m a student at the University of Regina, Canada. I'm writing a paper on urban development, and civil engineering. I was wondering if you could reference you pictures of the original 7 islands of Mumbai, and the current Mumbai. It would be much appreciated. Also do you know any good links, or article relating to this subject. In particular flooding in this area. Thanks Tyler. Tjdekoko 18:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The picture of the seven islands was taken from this book: Our Greater Bombay (1990) — Maharashtra State Bureau of Textbook Production and Curriculum Research
2. The latest SVG maps have been traced from Google Earth. The older maps were traced from a scanned hi res map.
3. What sort of flooding information are you looking for?

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking some photograhs of IN ships

On Nov 13 (10 A.M to 3 P.M) the IN ships will be docked in Kolkata for public view.[3] If you have any friends in Kolkata try to get some pictures of these ships to be used in Wikipedia. Chanakyathegreat 06:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiMedia India chapter

I read about the move to start a local chapter of WikiMedia. I am curious... what would be my responsibilities once I became a member? What's the use of this chapter anyway? The Silent Contributor 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some reliability issues

Hi Nichalp. It seems ibosnetwork.com is an RS (see the explanations here. But I could not generate data supporting the RS-ness of boxofficeindia.com. If these two sites, or at least one, can be proved RS, it will be very helpful for all Indian cinema related articles. What do you think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to note, that boxofficeindaia.com is a source of information for newspapers like Times of India, which apparently makes it a RS. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivial mentions do not constitute reliability. boxofficeindia isnt reuters. Or even a rediff. To see the difference search for "boxofficeindia", "reuters" and "rediff" on reliable sources using search string like <"reuters" site:hindu.com> on google. Also, facts and figures are exceptional claims and exceptional claims need exceptional sources and as many sources as possible to corroborate the claims. boxofficeindia, whatever it may be is certainly not an 'exceptional' source. Sarvagnya 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am repeating, if reputable sources use it as source of information - I can't see why Wikipedia can't. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot

There's a bot waiting for a flag at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved if you have a moment. Cheers, WjBscribe 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)