User talk:IndianBio/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Question

Hey buddy,

Regarding this edit, I can't say I've seen that in any article at all, and am curious: where did you get the idea from? Not sure what standards (if any) include it. Just thought I'd ask.

Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello @SNUGGUMS:, I actually saw it in some FA article which I am not able to recall right now. I believe the main idea behind this is that it reduces the page length. For an article like Perry, or consider Madonna, the references, although we make them align in three columns, can still increase the page length considerably. After applying the header to the Perry page, I saw that page length for scrolling decreased by 20%. Does that make sense? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. KP's article is around 106k right now with ~230 footnotes while Ms. Ciccone's is roughly 180k with ~350 footnotes. For Gaga (~150k with ~250 footnotes) or Michael Jackson (~245k with ~440 footnotes), this could also be applied. If you ever do find the FA you found it from, by all means do tell! Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure Snugs, and yeah we can probably apply this to fruition in other FA/GA bios also. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please be more careful.

You've just accused this IP of original research when the source already present in the article WAS updated to include the chart position the IP inserted. Don't you think it's good practice to actually look in to the content of an edit before reverting, instead of assuming bad faith/automatically considering an IP a vandal just because they're an IP? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that at the time IndianBio reverted, the link hadn't updated yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ARIA Charts updates its website very early in the AM of a Sunday [well, EU/US Sunday - because of the massive time difference]. And Hung Medien are pretty damn snappy about updating their databases. Hung Medien updates their AUS data anytime between 6-12AM GMT Sunday. So, yeah, it was there. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07:, the link was not updated when IP user added the chart peak. You can go around talking like an old broken record, but that does not change the fact. And IP or a regular user, I would have added the same edit summary. And you have proof of at exactly what time the database updated? No right? Then don't come here. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess you can see next Sunday what time Hung Medien updates their Australian database. And don't tell another user to not discuss an issue. Wikipedia is a community which works constructively to edit together. So discussion is key. There's no need to throw temper tantrums and "archive" (where is your archive, BTW?) discussions immediately when you don't like them. Homeostasis07 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: my point is you are the one who is keeping the bad faith on me. Everyday the article is being subjected to IP users who continuous update chart peaks without providing any source. This is a Featured list and its content should be highly verifiable at all time. And again, it is not my burden to go and look for sources. Your issue is why I'm not going around searching for sources. I would request you to take your time and then go ahead and add sources if you feel so strongly about it. And yeah, again the source was not updated when that IP cruft was added. You can believe it, or don't, I care less. You might not have noticed, but yes I do update the article whenever I see that sources have updated. And yes, you can see my current archive to see your old additions on my talk page. Your attacking attitude is not appreciated when even Kww pointed it to you not to make personal attacks on me just because I have been sticking up for WP:VERIFIABILITY. What is the point in discussing when you can't clearly see what is going on? I feel disgusted frankly to discuss anything with the accusations that you have thrown against me. And FWIW, Katy is one of my favorite artists, and I was one of the persons instrumental in helping to get her article to FA, so yeah I do care for her article not to let it subjected to IP cruft. As Kww pointed out, there's no harm in waiting for sources to update, even if it takes one week. Wikipedia is not a realtime news channel to report as soon as a chart updates. I hope you get and understand why I'm saying and explaining all this and just drop it dude. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Rant

first off gaga applause has sold 2,500,000 copies and Do What U Want sold 1,300,000 copies in the U.S Alone if you a real gaga fan read more about her visit her website gagadaily and click charts and sales and click artpop receipts then click source under both singles And album

Please sign your posts. The content you added is completely unsourced and fails verifiability policy of Wikipedia. Please refrain from adding such content in the future if you cannot procure a reliable source. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Prismatic World Tour

Just letting you know that KP's site HAS in fact updated to include the March 10th date in Amsterdam, she also mentioned it on Twitter and Facebook. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: dammit, I could have sworn it wasn't there!!! I checked and had kept the page open in another tab, maybe that's why I missed it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, things like this happen. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Constant reversions of my edit

May I please ask why you keep reverting all of my edits? It's annoying that you keep deleting all of my work! I don't understand why you reverted the cover I uploaded for "Part of Me" by Katy Perry, so please tell me what you did that for, because you didn't even explain to me why! You don't have to keep deleting the stuff I post, because I've heard from EXPERIENCED USERS, and you're not really that experienced to me, so I'm not going to listen to what YOU tell me because other users have told me different. Bye. OZODOR (Talk to me!) 23:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@OZODOR:, what I could find was that your image uploads do not comply with Non-free content criteria of Wikipedia. The image in question, File:Katy Perry - Part of Me.jpg had a huge resolution of 500x500 which is not acceptable, I have reverted to the original version of 300x300 and nominated the old versions to be deleted. Please do not go around uploading higher resolutions. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/91.154.111.132

That IP reverted it back on Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song). That ABC7 site ("synthpop ballad") is actually came from OnTheRedCarpet.com article (possibly a gossip one as said from talk page, and also with another same OTRC article). However, there's some of reliable authors says "pop ballad". [1][2][3][4]

I can't undo him/her. Can you please figure it out? 183.171.171.75 (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gaga (genus)

Hello! Your submission of Gaga (genus) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yakikaki (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Madonna.com !

madonna.com is the only official website of madonna. the official link i have mentioned in the source is the only official website that explains the album sales of madonna. the sources you mentioned aren't official. please don't add incorrect information. http://www.madonna.com/news/title/madonna-topselling-female-recording-artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Navyiconer:, please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable third party sources. We cannot and do not accept a source affiliated with the artist as that is liable to fraud and overhyping sales statistics for PR reasons. We only add third party reliable sources. And extensive discussions in the List of best-selling music artists have derived the consensus that Madonna has sold 300 million records, i.e. a total of 300 million albums, singles, video releases altogether. Anything more is simply inflating. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

i'm telling you but you don't understand me. the only official website of madonna explained this. the sources you give aren't official. you really don't understand but i guess you hate madonna that's why you act that way. one can understand it thanks to your words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Navyiconer: it is you who has failed to understand Wikipedia's policy. Madonna.com is a good source for news related to album release etc, but sales and critical response are all validated by third party sources. And keep the bullshit about Madonna hate to forums please. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Navyiconer, the reason we use secondary sources for sales instead of primary sources is because secondary sources are much less likely to have WP:Conflict of interest and—as IndianBio said—primary sources could easily be stretching the truth to increase positive image. Fine for album/song titles and releases, but not commercial or critical performance. We leave that to the critics and news reporters. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

yes you still don't understand. it is told about a reliable source in the policy of wikipedia. madonna.com is the single most reliable official source. okey don't accept the sales of madonna but madonna officially sold 275 million albums. nothing can change this. what happens if i change madonna's discograpfy again? what will you do!!!? and additionally, not only does it say on the madonna.com website that madonna sold 275 million albums but also on the official website of guiness world records. this is not a website that belongs to person. what do you think about it? i really wonder what kind of excuse you will find for this. and i had added the official source that belongs to guiness world records to my sources. you have never told about it. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-8000/topselling-female-recording-artist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As explained time and again, Madonna.com is not an official source for album sales, we require third party sources per WP:RS policy. You should really read these links that I'm highlighting. Adding your language incompetence I wonder whether you are even understanding what me or Snuggums have been explaining. Another thing, if you continue to go on adding Madonna.com as sources in the albums discography and other pages, against consensus and reliability, that would be considered edit warring and would result in blocking your account. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you? Are you Wikipedia? No, You are just a user! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, I'm just an user but I abide by Wikipedia's policy and rules. And if you cannot accept that then just bloody don't post here. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Rude! Actually, I don't belive Wikipedia anymore... I don't respect this site because it is full of rude users, shame yourself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

She has got over 300 million album sales, Guinness Records just announced that it will be on 2015's book. Here is the official link. https://twitter.com/GWR/status/509436384935821312/photo/1 This site isn't belong to madonna. It's not madonna.com. So, yes what do you think about that? Will you argue it, too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Fever

Hello IndianBio. How are you? I came by to tell you that I'm going to stop working on the "Fever" article for two or three days. Adding prose to it was all I've been doing for the last 4-5 days and it is getting a bit boring and annoying for me especially with all of the covers. I need to rest a little from it. Anyway, I wanted to notify you so you can do what you planned with it (if you have free time and will of course). Do you think it is getting close to the GA criteria? I Am... ***D.D. 19:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me @My love is love:, I will start working on it in this weekend then. :) Yeah its pretty close to GA now IMO. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, I can't wait to see you doing your magic on the article. :D I Am... ***D.D. 15:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

American Life Good Topic?

Hey Cedric! How are you? Well, I am here to talk about the American Life articles. After you made I'm Going to Tell You a Secret good article, when could we nominate American Life as good topic? Alex ^{talk page!} 00:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@11JORN: I'm good, and must not have noticed but all of them are GA now, so we can go ahead with the nomination after checking the dead links and redirect links etc, lol. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's probably best to look them over again before nominating. It was also a pleasure reviewing the GAN's for that and "Die Another Day" :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: its always a pleasure for me too :) And I love the fact that you like those articles :D. Cheers!!! —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cheek to Cheek (album)

added a link pointing to HSN

Nature Boy

added a link pointing to Macmillan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Gaga (genus)

The DYK project (nominate) 14:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Metrolyrics isn't the only official lyric provider in the world

Hi, Im a lyrics fan and I prefer much more directlyrics to metrolyrics. You reverted my lyrics link change in the taylor swift shake it off page I just confirmed directlyrics is as official and most importantly licensed as metrolyrics You can read here: http://www.directlyrics.com/about/ They have signed deals with all major publishing companies and lyric seal (im sure metrolyrics too) On top of that they add more cool content that metrolyrics doesnt have So I think as long as a lyric website is official and licensed it can be added as external link on wikipedia without problems Please let me know your thoughts I would like to keep adding lyric links on wiki

Regards

--Wikihelperman2014 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That might be the case, however, in Wikipedia we add MetroLyrics. I would suggest you go and make a post at WP:RSN regarding this. Get it finalized once and for all. Thanks for your explanation. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

--Wikihelperman2014 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Hi, I got a favorable response. What do you think?

Better to wait for some days if any other user wants to comment. After that you are free to add it. You might wanna develop a template also like {{DirectLyrics}}. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nature Boy

I think we would probably agree that the current article is extremely poor, and I've no wish to defend it in detail. I'm happy to try to improve it, over time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: thank you and that's what I was doing, sorry if it came across wrong. I am at present collecting information for the already present content, and adding reliable sources as I go. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine. The most notable version - historically - was the original one by Nat 'King' Cole, and in my view a good proportion of the text, and the infobox, should be about that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Agreed, the general guideline is that the first person to release a song as a single is listed in the infobox, like "Fever". Others are listed only if notable. Like a Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga version which is going to be released on September 16, 2014. I was actually waiting to collect more information on the Nat King Cole's version before adding his infobox. What do you say? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to do whatever work you want on the article for the moment - but I'll keep an eye on it! I think there are plenty of sources that explain how Cole received the song from ahbez and recorded it - though some sources conflict with each other. There is more info at the eden ahbez article. I'm quite busy right now but will come back to it when I can. There is a usable label shot here if you want to upload it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that pic is more than enough confirmation to add Nat King Cole's infobox, I also found some sources. But it would be better if you let me know the contradicting sources as well. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not quite true to say that there are "conflicting" stories - it is the details that vary, I think, rather than the overall story. I'm happy for you to lead on developing the article, but I will look in and perhaps tweak, as and when necessary. Can I ask you for some advice? When you uploaded the "Nature Boy" label shot, did you use a simple standard template for cover art - and, if so, can you give me a link to it? Whenever I try to upload cover art, the process always seems excessively complicated, and I usually seem to do it incorrectly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: you can go to File:Nat King Cole Nature Boy.jpg, and click on the Summary sub-section. There you will see I have used {{album cover fur}} template. You can copy and keep it in a textpad in your desktop and whenever you upload a music cover, you just copy paste it, replacing artist name, article name, label name etc. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As and when I think of, or uncover, additional sources, I'll add them here. This is a useful and (generally) accurate source for chart placings, confirming what is in the Joel Whitburn books. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's a wonderful link. Many thanks. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether you've seen this blog - http://bcxists.wordpress.com/ I don't suggest that it's a reliable source, but it is well informed - the author clearly knew ahbez, and contributed at Talk:eden ahbez a few years ago. Some of its links may also be worth looking at. . Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: can you check and see if any information is left to be added? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra

It is not me so much, but someone else who will respond negatively to any removals. What parts were you thinking to delete? BollyJeff | talk 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with having so many movies listed, is that editors keep adding more over time. I do think that you should take it to the talk page first. People get upset over unilateral changes to FAs. BollyJeff | talk 12:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sidewalk Talk

The article Sidewalk Talk you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sidewalk Talk for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Elusive Chanteuse Show

Why did you delete the article for the tour? All the information was correct and had references, it just needed to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbritneyfan101 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mrbritneyfan101:, the article absolutely did not have any reference and was just a bunch of dates. Such articles are not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Please work on it in your sandbox and then add it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How is her official website not a source? I put in there, and like I said it needed some work, but ok. Thanks...I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbritneyfan101 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mrbritneyfan101:, her official website is definitely a valid source, however not enough to warrant a separate article at present. Tour information will come up once she starts it, like the background info, critical response, costumes, song selection etc, why not create it then? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Many tour articles are created months before the tour even starts, so why not have this one now? Besides, it starts in 11 days, not like it's a year away. I will work on the article and I'm sure you will observe it when I'm done. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbritneyfan101 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To warrant a separate article, Mrbritneyfan101, it would need information from secondary sources (such as MTV, Rolling Stone, Billboard, or Entertainment Weekly) to meet WP:GNG. Primary sources (including an artist's website) are not by themselves enough to warrant articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Change of rating from Billboard on album Cheek To Cheek

If you go to billboard.com and check on the album Cheek To Cheek, they rated the album 3.5 out of 5 stars. Not 3 stars. That is why I changed the article to reflect it. Also your words say to not attack and to assume good assumptions which is why I changed it and it wasn't to disrespect. If you would also check your source you will see that it is a 3.5 rating.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.35.238 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@64.73.35.238: thanks for monitoring it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Billboard Rating is Still Incorrect

The Billboard Rating on this album is still incorrect. It should read 3.5 Stars per the Billboard.com website and the magazine itself. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.35.238 (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's Musical Genres

Hello!
I think we are all agreed that Lady Gaga's musical genres are electropop and dance-pop. However, she has recently released a collaborative jazz standarts album Cheek to Cheek with American singer Tony Bennett. I would like to ask that why we do not add jazz to her genres. I, also, know that just one jazz album does not make her a jazz singer, however, she is able to perform jazz as well and Cheek to Cheek receives positive criticism from many critics. Therefore I think we can add jazz music to genres section in her infobox.
Best regards,
--Hagvoda (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

@Hagvoda: you answered your own question. She has professionally dabbled and released one jazz album, and its too early to label it as one of her core genres. Let's see if she still pursues it later point also, then maybe we can add it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cheek to Cheek (album) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and Gaga first met backstage in 2011, after performing at the [[Robin Hood Foundation]] gala in [[New York City. The two later recorded a rendition of "[[The Lady Is a Tramp]]", and began

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cheek to Cheek (album) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for I'm Going to Tell You a Secret

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's discography

Hello, Lady Gaga is very popular in Japan, she sells million of albums out there, and always gets great positions on charts. What about we includ it on her article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulkul (talk • contribs) 01:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Bad Romance edits

Hello IndianBio,

Thanks for finding an archived version of the European Top 100 chart; however, is it just me, or does that page not show up very well? I clicked on the next archived version and it worked perfectly (for me). Also, just like you, I spotted that the Japan source was wrong (one of the dead links). I see that you replaced it but I can't find the #3 peak position. I was about to use this link to show it reached #9 instead of #3 (it's the best I could do). Please, what do you think? Thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dontreader:, the European Hot 100 loads fine for me, maybe it is a browser issue? However feel free to replace with the next archived version. And you are correct, the Allmusic link does not show it, so thanks for pointing it out (They did use to show it). I will replace with the Billboard reference and the chart peak per source. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It could be a browser or configuration issue. I changed the link and now it works for me. You accidentally added a letter at the end of the Japanese link I gave you, so I corrected that. The article is better now. Thanks again! Dontreader (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dontreader: thanks its better that way then :) And on another thing, I realized I had probably encountered you before regarding some one adding unreliable fanweb links in "4 Minutes". Or was it someone else? :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your memory is excellent! I had a really long war with that guy (Lesser Cartographies); he was assigned as a mediator by Bgwhite for editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article because Duffbeerforme (who had irrationally voted to delete the article) came back several months later to make life impossible for me while editing it, so I agreed not to edit that article any more, and so far Duffbeerforme hasn't touched it either. However, although Lesser made some improvements, he was obsessed with making the article as short as possible. If you look at the lead section, it does not summarize the article, which is necessary according to WP:LEAD. You have lots of experience with biographies of living persons, and I really wish you could help me with the article, but I need permission from Bgwhite first. Please let me know. I could simply give you some important facts that are missing, and then you could decide what to do. That would be awesome! I must get some rest... best wishes... Dontreader (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My image changes reverted

To the modifier named Indian Bio

First of all , all i did was to add a image of the Actor.so how are you refering that i have used marathi in my description. Secondly are you an administrator or commons.You have to tell me if the code was breaking.the image was a copyright image of the artist.Please tell me why you reverted my changes.

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) like this. Now your image is a non-free one which you have uploaded as a free image in commons. That is not acceptable and since you are not the copyright owner of the image you cannot do so. Continuing to upload non-free images of living persons under false pretext will lead to block. I have nominated the file for deletion. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)