User talk:Dwaipayanc/Archive 30

Thanks

Thanks Dwaipayan. Your welcome message is appreciated. Yes, the wikiworld seems to be wonderful and I do hope to stay put.Texankudiya 05:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Texankudiya 05:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33

Great news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/26/wikipedia-weeekly-30/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP ^(?) 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

PINQ

Hey, it is your turn next! — Ravikiran 06:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the Novels 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I know who is this ?

Hi buddy,

this is Gnana. May I know who is this? It seems you have edited the page that I managed for a long time with out my permission.

Give me your identity.

Cheers Gnana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.190.70 (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You won't believe this. The Preity Zinta article has been listed for Good article reassessment, while all these guys who opposed to its FAC promotion, claimed that it has to be delist. I'm shocked. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so grateful to you. And I'm grateful for your help. It's greatly appreciated. I have to tell you something, because I have nonbody to share it with.

Since the FAC, I've been losing me temper on Wikipedia quite frequently. I guess these have been some of my most terrible days on Wikipedia. I was blocked for a 3RR violation (after users removed almost all the references on Shahrukh Khan's page without discussion), and then, after using my sister's PC during the block (I didn't know that it's not permitted, and I only improved things), my block was extended for another 72 hours on the same day. I was very offended but the administrator has unblocked me after reading my message on the talk page. The FAC was closed, but I was not upset. I was happy, becuase the suffering I was going through on it, was apparently ended-up. But it wasn't; some users decided to edit the page on their personal will, removing things, I had strong arguments with some editors over reliability of sources (claiming that The Times of India, indiaFM are unreliable). I've met editors who have some unpolitness issues. It's disgusting to me. I'm still thinking of leaving Wikipedia. I get too upset (yet, I liked very much your edits on the page. And you're so nice :)). Today, after another day of unbearable interactions, I was shocked to discover the currently announced not-promoted FAC on this page (which I don't even want to mention). All these guys who opposed to its FA promotion were there. All these guys who've been arguing with me, were there. It was an extreme; an extreme that led to Blofeld's decision to leave Wikipedia.

I'm sorry for telling you all that but I have nobody to tell it to, and you're so nice. Editors have now bad impression of me, that I'm a bad editor because me being recently blocked (at least I'm on very good terms with the administrator who blocked me - Spartaz. We had a couple of discussions).

My request is, please please please --- don't leave me alone on this article. I'm almost retired, I think. I surely have a very little share of disappointments to face, after which, I'll leave the encyclopedia. I get too upset, and I'm afraid that "the straw that breaks the camel's back" is yet to come. Nationalism, racism ("Bollywood" in the site title --> it's a sure NON-rs. That's their way) is ugly to me. I would be extremely happy if you were there to help with Zinta.

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your suggestions and advices. Feels better. I think you are the only one I trust at the moment. Yes, I'm not upset. I know, most of the editors on the GA review attacked me indirectly, but as you said, there are no policies about too many quotations or reviews (especially when other FAs use it). I'd rather visit Wikipedia once in a while. I need a break. Thanks for the guidance friend. Indeed very encouraging :) Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I would be extremely grateful if you added some comments here on sources - Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Bollywood articles. I've already proved that boxofficeindia.com is reliable, please follow the comments. If you can please comment. Some editor claims The Times of India being non-RS also. That's really strange. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. She opted for an English Honours in Mumbai, but eventually took psychology at St Bede's college in Shimla. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet-Bollywood, Apunkachoice. Are they unreliable? I just think we must add a critic review, which won her a Best Actress award. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friend. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big expert in reliability issues, but what mostly worries me are apunkachoice and planetbollywood. When you have time, I ask you please investigate it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's the matter with User:Sarvagnya and User:KNM. They are going against me for no reason. They just speculate that I'm reverting edits and I'm violating WP:OWN while both of these claims are false. I suspect that they are interacting somehow beside Wikipedia and are trying to cause to my block. See User talk:Spartaz - they are trying to get me blocked. What am I supposed to do? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just addressed his concerns. One editor added a tag claiming that one ref doesn't imply to the context, so I removed the text. I've tried to rewrite the article several times, and now we are again over a new discussion. Is Zinta prominent or not? You live in India. Isn't she? Jolie's page describes her as "One of the best known and highest paid." So why can't we cite Zinta as prominent? Why do we have to reduce her status? He says it's my POV, while there is a source there (which proved to be reiable). Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like when people encourage me ("Please try to be cool") and I like you bro. :) That's a kind of work I appreciate. Thank you. I really have to chill over these issues. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we add "prominent" friend? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I trust you so much (because you're the nicest, just like Blofeld is), but I do. "Leading" satisfies. "Prominent" is indeed too much. Will look for citations. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some important things (very important quotations, some minor details), and a ref from ToI as requested by you. The article is in excellent shape, in its current version; just needs to be updated with more reviews in the career section; saying that she was praised/criticized is easy, but it's up to the reader to decide. I'm happy that you've cut down all the controversies. They look much better now. The Bharat Shah is the largest one, and the most detailed here, and I'm happy, as it is the most notable. Should I start an article for Marc Robinson? And as for Indian Idol, should we add that she was a guest judge? You've removed it, I suppose because it comes from "indiainfo.com". Is it unreliable? I'm really grateful to you for your help. Please notify me about any other unreliable sources. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I'm aware of this. I'll look for it tomorrow. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staying away

Hello Dwai,
I have realised now, especially after seeing above discussion on "prominent" :), I need to stay away from Zinta article, atleast for sometime. I feel, I would have never convinced Shahid in the way you have done, especially when he has got the feeling that I have something against him! It was quite sad seeing such comments. With this feeling, whatever copyedit I make, he may find it difficult to assume the good faith. So I will leave it to you, and the article is certainly making good progress. Hope to see it soon on FAC. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 21:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34

zOMG! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34 has been released, and it's the biggest panel in quite a while!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/03/wikipedia-weekly-34-aka-fundraiser/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

No probs. :)

I see. Yet I think that we shoudn't remove her quote about Marc Robinson, and the quote that says that she is popular at school. Another thing, I think mentioning her character name and cast in the career section is really necessary. And the Bharat Shah case was cut down now and it's a pitty, since we don't get enough info of her most significant experience during her career. If we're talking about controversies, the Ness Wadia case was also shortened and all the very well publicized contro is reduced to two lines, and Krishnamurthy's too. I like it in its previous version of yours. I agree, the article has to be as short as possible, but not at the expense of important info. My work is just so inspired by Jolie's article. And I think we should take it as a role-model for our work. That upsets me because I liked it today. Anyway, I won't make any edits on the page, I'll leave it to you. Thanks friend. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it was delisted already :( Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intending to leave these additional articles there? Is that permitted? So great!!! In fact, the whole previous version appears there, and it is illustrated way better there. I'm not upset because of the delisting. Not at all. A) The article is still 'A' class. B) it will soon reach a FA.

Re characters, I do think it's important. The filmography is just a technical aspect. The prose must mention everything - the character, co-star and full general info.

Quote of Robinson illustrates the good terms we were talking about (as on Jolie's page.), and Jolie for example, wasn't popular and her article widely mentions it. Controversies had once their own section, and I'm happy with the way it is written on the sister page. It is not really informative, understandable or readable. As a reader who doesn't know her, it would look a huge mess.

Now, I just trust you so much, you're a great editor, you're a friend, you're nice. I've assumed good faith on you since the first message you sent me one or two months ago. Thanks for your efforts, great. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already proved it's reliability. I followed the instruction of some editors, to get an evidence 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 of information for themselves, it is definitealy reliable. Spartz and Nichalp support me now. What do you say? Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boxofficeindia also states that Kya Kehna is a semi-hit. The results are almost identical. But I mostly trust boxofficeindia. IBOS doesn't always give BO verdicts. boxofficeindia does, and I think it's reliable. It's not a fan-based site. Please help me fight for it. Everybody uses BOI as a source of info. And due to my awareness in the Indian media, everything is right. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he does - [3]. He suggested me to create an article. User:Spartaz - an administrator also supported. And please see the links before. ToI use it as a source, I don't see why Wikipedia cannot. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have there two from ToI. I'll look for more. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why IBOS' RS-ness more than BOI's? Could you please try to write somehing about BOI on the talk page. I think it's realiable, and the disclaimers are very similar. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the title says: "No probs. :)". There is need to rewrite a bit, and I still have the feeling that the controversies on the original page must be expanded, as it's not really readable, when we have two lines about that, and things are not understandable and it doesn't flow. Even if we keep it in minor explanation, it has to be informative in its two or three possible lines. We can introduce things in the best way. For example, "in 2006 Zinta was involved in a media scandal" so then in flows. Much of that has to be clarified.

Plus, she is an actress, we have to highlight her film career in the article. I'll look for more reviews from critics. I really want to expand it. These unreliable sources are the cause to our troubles. Most of the reviews were removed.

Let's take the time to get an FA. We don't have to hurry. Thanks again. Best regards:), Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worked on it (only the career section). Expanded the 2003 paragraph of her career section. It was a full disaster. Organized films in chronological order, in terms of release. We can't list Koi Mil Gaya and Kal Ho Naa Ho first because they're the biggest hits. Tried to keep major neutrality. I came to the conclusion that only notable films/roles can be accompanied by reviews. I want to find a good review quote for Kal Ho Naa Ho from an American newspaper or whatever. I haven't touched anything else, no media, no personal life, as you requested. :) Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs again! Today I'm going for the Om Shanti Om premiere. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I have a ticket for Saawariya also, the day after tomorrow. That's the only date I coud've found (and I bought them almost two weeks ago...). I really suggest you to watch Chak De. All the other Yash Raj Films sucked, especially Jhoom Barabar Jhoom (sorry Preity, but it was a disaster (LOL)) and Laaga Chunari Mein Daag (a bad attempt of YRF to make an art film).

I've already started addressing non-RSes on SRK's page. Well I guess I gotta go now. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 35

Let us rejoyce! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 35 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/11/episode-35-secretly-famous/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 01:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.