User talk:Plumcouch/Archive 5

Hi Plumcouch

Hi, I am writing regarding the heated Ajith article dispute, I personally think the Noted Roles will help readers understand he is a serious actor and the roles he has played. It will also be informative and understandable, so I think you should put the Noted Role section back. Thamizhan 11:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Dracula talks to you =

Hello, I changed the saravanan sivakumar article back as it is completely valid to have co- stars and directors on the filmography, and you are not a person that can tell everyone what to do. So I have come to a conclusion to leave the filmography how I have made it, do not change it back.

King Dracula 11:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey i changed the shah rukh photo u can see the face now happy ?

shah rukh khan pic

hey i put a shah rukh khan picture where you can see the face happy ?

Dracula likes you

I love ur style

King Dracula 12:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

u talking to me dracula ?

Messing around

Hello, nice talking to you. This has reference to your message regarding a small problem over at Priyanka Chopra`s page: "same person have been messing around with the picture" - [1]. Is it so? People would always mess around with pretty women! Ultimately, this will be over and a "lasting relationship" shall emerge. --Bhadani 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can u help clear up the Chiranjeevi page as fans keep adding POV. Thamizhan 10:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to the Chiranjeevi and Ajith articles now both are great !! Thamizhan 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi, I see that you interacted with this user, could you help him on WP so that he contributes positively and doesn't vandalise? You may also want to join in this discussion. TIA, --Gurubrahma 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:BipashaBasu.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BipashaBasu.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==IMDB==

You want to credit cast as imdb. Then do it. Just remember that Preity, though being the lead in Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is credited fifth after Lara Dutta and others. Preity is also after Rani in Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega on imdb. It's only Veer-Zaara where she is before Rani. IMDB doesn't make sense because there are many cases where it doesn't credit justifiably. It's random once they get the stars first on the list. Anyway, you might not have seen Veer-Zaara. Pa_7 and I have, we both agree Rani is before Zinta in the movie. So, let's place it like that. If one doesn' see the movie which is a rare feat but if one does not, then the other editor can. In any case, whoever makes the article for films must have seen the movie. Otherwise, why would he/she be interested to make one in the first place. I'm not saying we can match this standard on every page. We might forget. But making this as a new standard is better since today, there are edit wars between normal users too as wikipedia is becoming more and more popular. So, why not be just? Film makers know what they're doing. It's final then. Just follow cast as the film suggests. For the new ones, do them however you want, once the film releases, you can change. Though, we won't have to most of the time because we already know the results for most of them. I hope you agree. Please don't complicate this further as it is. Thanks.

Do you get it or not? Ask me!

Well if that's the standard, then why don't you put Zinta after Lara Dutta on Jhoom Barabar Jhoom. I don't think you get it? It's not a fight for personal reasons. It's an argument on what makes sense. I don't care if it's accessible. The right thing to do is to follow the film maker's credit list. It's that simple. No arguments or biases. Period. If you do use IMDB, then do put SRK from the rest of the cast in Har Dil Jo Pyar Karege. Go check on IMDB. -- shez 14:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Hello! ==

What do you mean considering my history? I've only favored Rani because I think she deserves every bit of attention. I know you might not agree but billions of people consider her the queen of bollywood today...You just don't know talent. Anyway, I don't think she is in any of the older movies, so why would I list someone before someone else. For the older movies, the main actor and then main actress are credited before. But in today's time, trends have changed. The film maker markets the movie using star power and trust me Rani is the most bankable actress in Bollywood today. Well, I'm just saying to use the film version. If you use IMDB, which I'm fine with. You'll just have to change every page according to that. Jhoom Barabar Jhoom. Preity goes after Lara Dutta. That's all. Even in HDJPK, IMDB lists Rani before Zinta. Now, just because of Veer-Zaara page, you want to list Zinta after Dutta. Doesn't make sense?

I'm BACK

King Dracula is back!!!!!!

Priyanka chopra

I saw your request on WP:RPP and semi=protected the page. Since it is a one-anon violating WP:3RR, report these to WP:AIV and get the anon blocked. Protection should be requested rarely when mulitple anon's vandalize and gets difficult to fight them all. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Bollywood

I mean Rani is the Queen of Bollywood these days. Kajol, Madz and the rest were considered this title back then. I even put these days. Whenever, I see Rani's interview, they refer to either as the Queen of Hearts or Bollywood. Sridevi was also referred to the Queen of Hearts back then. I think most generally, they call her this bcoz of her name which means queen and her current bank balance and box office rule. Thanks for understanding.

I won't use QOB

fine i wont use the qob. but i do feel she is entitled to the name not ash. she has been giving consistent performances. bagging all the awards. being ranked no.1 by every mag. breaking box office records. who else can do that these days? but do whtvr. ash only gets the credit for qob because of globalization phenomenon. she is been in Hollywood. People know her in America although in India, rani is more popular. ash was qob in 2003 but then 2004-2006, rani is the one. why would you give ash qob title when she has had so many flops. her acting sucks. she is so arrogant. anyway, whtvr. these americans are so ignorant. they think by research they know the in and out of bollywood but they don't. i know this stuff. well the page looks good. from other actors. rani's is the best page. the rest of the actors have brief writing which sucks. bye.

Don't bite newbies

I realize that I can sometimes be harsh when it comes to my edits, but I would like to bring some things up in my defence. The first is that each day I remove about 50 peices of information on the Avatar sites I watch mostly because they are speculation, incorrect, fancruft, or don't make sence. Around the 35th time I remove the SAME information (the one in question removed) I get a bit annoyed seeing as the information is announced incorrect on the talk page and people don't realize that speculation doesn't belong. I realize that some of these people are just trying to help, but I'd say 7/10 of the time, the person doing the editing is a multiple abuser who's IP changes. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hi, I wanted to know if it was OK to add a fansite and this site I found for Vidya Balan. It has all her information in one place. I think the image should be changed as it has blatantly been added to advertise a site as the untagged version can been found easily on the web [here]. Also, she has also signed a film called "Suryamukhi" and "Halla Bol" which has not yet been added to her page.

Thank you

Thank you for replying so promptly. I just edited my previous post to discuss the image on vidya balan's page. Waiting for your reply. :)

Atomickitkat 14:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the appropriate changes. I added the two links I mentioned. There was a no fansites message on the edit page so I am not sure if my additions will stay or not.

Atomickitkat 14:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hi, I wanted to know if it was OK to add a fansite and this site I found for Vidya Balan. It has all her information in one place. I think the image should be changed as it has blatantly been added to advertise a site as the untagged version can been found easily on the web [here]. Also, she has also signed a film called "Suryamukhi" and "Halla Bol" which has not yet been added to her page.

Thank you

Thank you for replying so promptly. I just edited my previous post to discuss the image on vidya balan's page. Waiting for your reply. :)

Atomickitkat 14:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the appropriate changes. I added the two links I mentioned. There was a no fansites message on the edit page so I am not sure if my additions will stay or not.

Atomickitkat 14:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the IndiaFM site because it is very trustworthy, but I admit it doesn't contain much information. I can remove the link if you wish. The fansite link I added has been changed to a different site (vidya-balan.com). What happened? Let me know if there is a problem with the link I added.

Atomickitkat 08:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?

Please take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pyaar_Ke_Side_Effects . I'm not sure how serious it is, or what "action" needs to be taken apart from rewriting the article. But I do know it's simply not right. Shouldn't the original at least be mentioned? Anagha 18:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to get started tonight. :) Anagha 06:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Took me three hours, but I managed to get a synopsis down. Will add music and trivia et al later. :) Anagha 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC) And oh! If you've time, can you please take a look at this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=88.108.75.217 S/he seems to be on a mission to lessen the ages of Bollywood stars! I reverted his edits to match IMDb. Anagha 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did not know that about IMDb, but now I do. :) Anagha 19:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed link

The fansite link I added at the Vidya Balan page has been changed to another site. Any problems?

Atomickitkat 15:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Civil

Salman Khan Article-

If the article stays civil and no vandalism occurs, one may stay civil. Repeated twisting of truth and facts to falsely implicate someone will have extraordinary reactions to say the least.

You cannot promote Shahrukh Khan on Salman Khan's page, its impossible to credit every co-star on the subjects article. First credit Salman Khan on Shahrukh Khan's article then you might expect a reciprocal.

Like I said before, go and edit the Blockbuster term out of Tom Cruise's page, then come back to unjustify double First World standards. -LuckyS.

Plumcouch, I have warned him from about 3RR and NPA. Hopefully he will work things out. Some of his edits seem to be good. Let us WP:AGF for now. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dia Mirza Article Neglected

Why r u not touching the article these days..chk it plz..a lotz has happened

Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article

Added more movies and the info on the Nigam vid. What do you think? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 19:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link changed

There is some unregistered user, who I'm assuming is the site owner that is constantly changing the link I added originally to the Vidya Balan page to "vidya-balan.com". Anything that can be done about this?

Thank you

Atomickitkat 15:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Hi! ==

I need a favor from you. If you can help, great, otherwise I have zora and pa_7. So as I was saying, can we make Rani Mukerji's page somewhat like Diane Keaton's one. It's a beautiful article. That's why I keep adding facts and stuff to Rani's article to make it more like other ones. We need to think outside the box. If only someone can put those facts in real nice words and make the sentences interesting. But you guys keep reverting the work, making an excuse for fangush. If it's fangush, then why don't you take the facts from fangush and make a better sentence which is more subtle and appropriate. I don't think it's fangush. But everything on the page is true, so just take the references and use them to write better and long. References don't lie, that's why I've put reputed source. I already cut down on the Filmfare No.1 fact but even on Diane, Eva Longoria, JLO's page, there is a mention of rankings. And so many other articles. There's nothing wrong with it. You don't need to rank everyone. Just the top three or just the no.1 It's a great accomplishment. It's not just one source, you know. Every magazine puts her as No.1 for box-office power. I don't think that's fangush. If it were only one magazine, maybe favoritsm but when every top magazine of India, states the same, there is no fangush there. Anyway, do whatever. I just don't want Rani's page to be boring and brief like other Bollywood-related articles. If we start from here, maybe later on, the format can be used and other Bollywood articles can do the same and become more interesting. People don't even look at an article if it's short. There is no info. People tend to search somewhere else on google. Then what's the point of this article? Why not just delete it? Well, I can only do so much as to add info, you guys are editors who can write good and organize thoughts and convey subtle information. Perhaps, maybe even influence people. The old days are gone. Just because Madhuri's article is brief, doesn't mean Aishwarya's or Sushmita's need to be less than that length. People search the latest stuff. We need to improve our current actors and actresses pages. Then, we can move on to legends. Think about it. We can do such a good job. Only if you cooperate and we must not revert one other's work before discussing the problem. I already put so many references. I think it's fine for now. But we can do 50 by the end of 2007. Just think it through. You just need to read all those articles and put it all together in one article. Just go through the references. I'll ask pa_7 to help you. It would be great if Zora could. I'll ask her but I'm not sure. Thanks for reading this! -- shez 12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Khan's Article

Mention of the exact industry (Mumbai based Hindi Cinema) is the key to differentiate it from other industries in Indian cinema vis-a-vis Salman Khan, the Indian Cinema article doesnot mention where exactly does Salman Khan work, in the industries that combine Indian Cinema.

All readers are not experts on Indian Cinema. A reader might have heard of Salman Khan but may not be aware whether he works for the Kashmiri film industry or The Mumbai based hindi film industry, popularly known as Bollywood. Clicking on the link and reading the entire Indian Cinema or Bollywood article will not provide any clue either to the reader, who is not as knowledgeble of Salman Khan as you are for instance.

The basic meaning of an encyclopedia is to provide detailed/ verifiable information on a subject to all its readers.

--LuckyS 21:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS[reply]

Hello, Plumcouch,

It is true that the Bollywood article has most information about location and everything, and info on the renaming of cities also belongs to the city article:

Still the Bollywood article doesnot tell where exactly does Salman Khan works. How will a less knowledgable reader know?

... in Indian Cinema (The Hindi/Urdu film industry, based in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) also popularly known as Bollywood).

It is only a single sentence which describes every thing conveniently for any reader,

lets say a 7 year old school kid comes to Wikipedia, assuming it to be a regular encyclopedia and reads about Mumbai on Salman Khan's page (also, there are still countless westerners who refer Mumbai as Bombay and are not aware of the change in its name). One little piece of information will prove to be very useful to them and will be true to encyclopedic nature as well.

Khan [...] remains one of the most successful movie stars in the Indian movie industry

(the term Indian Cinema is an Official term and is more recognised, it also links to its article-Cinema of India/Indian Cinema.)

About the links, needing to a proper shape, can you please elaborate, I couldn't get your point.

Thanks- Best regards, --LuckyS 22:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS.[reply]

~The term Indian Movie Industry, (though understandable) has a non existent use, it is not utilized anywhere, when it comes to describe Cinema of India.

Terminology- Indian Cinema is a part of World Cinema and authors all over the world utilize this term, hence it should stay.

About (formerly Bombay) I see your point, agree and going by your suggestion have linked it to Mumbai city.

Brackets are neccessary when explaining a related fact. It is important not to refer Indian Cinema or the Hindi film Industry as purely Bollywood (informal name) alone.

...Salman Khan.. in Indian Cinema has to be referred with Hindi/Urdu film industry (popularly known as Bollywood) to explain the exact industry where he works. I hope that answers your question.

I have fixed the referrence template with the small link as well. However large links are not unwarranted and are a part of the tools as well, other than not taking lots of space in the reference section, they take relatively less space and provide instant sourcing to people who doubt citations.

Also, there was a gossip site link in references which said Lucky is the story of Sneha Ullal falling in love with an Old man, and not Older man as stated in the same article. Whether Salman Khan's dad uses the same pen, earrings, bracelet etc. is purely gossip and non verifiable source coming from a self contradictory film magazine web site. Therefore I removed it.

If it comes from an interviewed quote, it can be added back.

Thanks, Best regards- --LuckyS 18:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS[reply]

~ Hollywood is different from Bollywood, I have credited Bollywood as Bollywood alone and not as Hollywood. Both have different credentials. While Hollywood is a real existing place, it does not need any description in brackets.

Bollywood as I said earlier, is an informal name, you cannot entirely do away with it, nor can you credit it as Indian Cinema as a whole. A description in brackets is fair and the best way to be informative, settling all disputes, then and there.

All subjects in Wikipedia, differ, one cannot use the same language in every article. The content has to be verifiable, informative and true.

Best regards- --LuckyS 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS[reply]

Salman Khan

LuckyS has arrived on Wikipedia and declared the Salman Khan article HIS. Any edits I make to the article, to tone down some of the fangush he has added, are reverted as "vandalism." Another Indian editor, Pratulka I think, has claimed Amitabh Bachchan, also with intent to erect a shrine to the beloved. When I tried changing his prose, he left messages on my talk page warning me not to touch the article because I'm not Indian and I'm a nasty elitest. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with fans like Shez, Lucky, and Pratulka. Do you have any thoughts? Zora 05:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Zora-

As far as LuckyS is concerned, he is merely protecting the article from vested interests like insecure fans of xyz actors. Calling a realively new editor a fan, does not prove anything, in fact, by the virtue of your actions, you seem to be an overjealous insecure fan of some rival actor, who is using his/her experience to vandalise the article by terming verifiable truth as fangush and by deleting key verifiable facts. The fact that you have been contributing since 2004 does not mean that you own Wikipedia, own every article you edit, or carry the burden of editing the articles to your fancies alone. All the facts provided in Salman Khan's article are verifiable, It can be proven even in the court of Law, I welcome a contest. Besides, there are references/ sources in the article itself to prove the facts. It is a clear case of jealousy on your part, where useage of terms like top grossers and blockbusters, which are seldom achieved by other actors have been correctly credited on the article and have been tried to be wrongly removed by you. These terms are not fangush as falsely alleged by you, they are encyclopedic, even used in Wikipedia, in film terminology and for credited actors/ films the world over. Beside Bollywood is an informal name and referring it as Indian Cinema alone is the real fangush and absurd claim. You need to accept the fact that there are better contributors around who can do an honest job. I am not averse to your contributions but, against you vandalising the article. Contributing for the past 3 years is no excuse for wrongly manipulating an article to your propaganda. Your misleading claims that Salman Khan was given special treatment by the police and that his blood alcohol was not tested proves your strongest bias against the actor, and your slanderish contributions to the article. Your problem is your lack of basic knowledge about the subjects you choose to edit, the edits then become vandalism since you delete, verifiable facts owing to your lack of information or pure jealousy. You need to be unbiased, honest and appreciative to truthful efforts by fellow contributors. --LuckyS 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS[reply]

or you will be reported to....

PC, Here is a interesting edit summary. :) -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to your message on my talk page) My suggestion to you is to involve more administrators. Post all these incidents on to WP:ANI. Provide links to these funguish edits. I have seen adminstrators mention that they don't see any India-related incidents over there. We should not hesitate to post there more often. You will have people willing to listen and take action. Make sure to report personal attacks, 3RRs and block evasions. I would also suggest you get help from WP:FILMS folks. May be they could help you out. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajith Kumar

If the section is re-added, I'd take the matter to Request for comment and follow the steps for a request on article content. If the RFC process is moving slow, then you could try informal mediation, assuming that King Dracula is willing to participate (it does take 2 to tango). ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Plumcouch

How are you

Nice to meet you on Diwali (aka the festival of light when rama, sita, laxman, monkey god and monkey slaves killed the bad guy.)

King Dracula says have a happy and safe diwali. Enjoy!!

I have added the 'better' filmography back to the Ajith article, as you can see it has been used in many other star's articles, like world beauty aishwarya rai's and even our very own chocolate hero Maddy's.

The noted roles section is also in other articles such as Maddy's, I see that you are personalising the Ajith article, please stop as Wikipedians like I want to neutralise Wikipedia and make it a safe source to many around the world. I am currently trying to make Ajith's article fit in with heroes and heroines such as maddy and ash.

As I am King Dracula, i will be a friend to you and shall therefore make a few suggestions to improve you current editting.

- YOU may have to think about YOUR edits carefully before making them! - YOU should not personalise the articles, as therefore they will not be neutral! - YOU should do research before doing edits on any article on wikipedia!

These are a few suggestions if you need more don't be shy to ask me, King Dracula, for advise.

Thank You and Happy Diwali.

King Dracula 19:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plumcouch - YOU deserve this

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded in recognition of your contributions to Wikipedia and for the fact that YOU are on it 24/7. King DraculaKing Dracula 19:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]