User talk:Plumcouch/Archive 6

Salman Khan's Article

Hello Plumcouch! Your addition of the filmography table is much appreciated, however please refrain from adding controversial articles that level slanderous allegations.

One should not be compelled to notify Legal Authorities to contest its mention in Wikipedia.

Mention of Salman's current and only court cases are already provided by your contributions in the article with their respective sources.

Infact, the section Relationship Troubles/ Aishwarya Rai, added by you much earlier, defies the logic of you asking for its credibility again in the Personal Life section.

Wiki's Katrina Kaif's article states that she's dating Salman Khan, all sections of the press mentions the same whenever both of them are written about, I wonder what you are trying to prove by asking something which is a known fact to everyone.

All actors, whose articles are found in Wikipedia, do not have their Birth Certificates, published on rediff.com, certifying their parentage.

Does that mean, a known fact like that will also be challenged, by simply using one's editing powers with this sign {fact}, asking for example- actors Shahrukh Khan and Vivek Oberoi that they are indeed the sons of their respective fathers, as merely mentioned in their articles.

Do you think that, all the facts that are of common knowledge by Local editors will be challenged by someone who wants everything to be certified by the Internet. Can any site, claiming anything it fancies, be justifiably added as a source?. Is all data of periodicals/ birth records/ DNA reports/ Personal diaries/ official biographies available on the internet?

About the workplace of Salman Khan, I hope you will agree that a mention of Both, Indian Cinema and Bollywood is the best and shortest way to explain.

Best regards,--LuckyS 20:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS

- Hello! 'PC'

I was going through the article Indian Cinema[1] when I discovered; the description of Bollywood was pretty close to what I had provided in the first place. If you look at the second topic titled- Regional Film Industries, third paragraph. It clearly states the most precise definition.

• The Hindi film industry, based in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), is called 'Bollywood' (a melding of Hollywood and Bombay).

It is not based on self styling, but the most accurate rendition, being educative to all. Best regards---59.178.10.216 23:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS

Orphaned fair use image (Image:John abraham.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:John abraham.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Plumcouch! Thanks for being so worried for me! Yeah, it was a very nice diwali, blew some fireworks, got together with the family etc etc. I was actually busy with university work, that's why I've been away. I think I came at the right time as well cause I just saw that Shez is also back. It's going to be very interesting! Oh yes, if you look on my talk page you will see that a user called LuckyS has protested against your recent edits, something about Salman Khan? Will see what is going on there. Thanks for the welcome note! Pa7 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== You make me proud ==

Wow! I've looked at all your work so far. It makes me proud to have known you through wikipedia. Keep it up. Anyway, I tried to improve Rani's page as much as I could. Now only, if you could correct the language and grammar mistakes. Although, I believe gamesmaster9 did so. And that's the version I've kept but I've added a few things. Short sentences. If you could have a look. I don't know if Zora will revert it. But I said nothing about No.1 or any other false statement. Nor did I idolise Rani. I just slated the facts. Now if she is the best in the business, how can you list her successes as fangush. I don't get it. Anyway, you judge yourself. I'll keep your version as the final one cause I trust your writing and work. If you think anything is false, I'll provide you a reference. The thing is, most of my facts come from her interviews and news channel on tv which talk about her. Not the gossip shows but the real news channels which talk about films for one hour. I also read magazines. The ones that don't gossip but interview the actors. Those ones. But if you think something is weird, I'll look on the internet. It's hard to find lots of stuff which is directly coming from tv and newspapers but I'll try. K thanks!

User:shez_15

== Listen! ==

I know why Koi Mil Gaya might seem an important role for many. But I don't think so. She has done so much better work than Koi Mil Gaya which is under-rated. Like in Armaan, I think that's a notable role. She even won an award for it. For Koi Mil Gaya: None. She doesn't even have a full name in that movie. So, you can see, the depth of the character is not even founded. I'll put the roles I think which are important and which were critically noticed and then you can alter later but at least see what I've got to offer. You have already put the successful films in the career. Rani hasn't done meaty roles in the past like Zinta. I think we should put them on there. Like in Sangharsh. That's a vital role. So much power and so much shouting. She was noticed for that film. But people forget because they may not be popular movies. But we're talking about important roles not films. See my list. Then do whatever you deem fit. User:shez_15

fair use violation of pictures

Hey Plumcouch,

I was recently informed that the procedure I've been using to create Fair Use pics for Bollywood actors is in violation of wikipedia policy. If this is true then almost all pictures in use on pages of Bollywood actors will have to be removed. I've posted a dicussion thread on Indian Cinema and I'd like to hear your thoughts.Gamesmaster G-9 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood

You said- How abou rename it and get rid of the brackets (Screen reader, anyone?), and cut the Mumbai part since it is already in the Bollywood article. Also, in the West Indian Cinema *is* known as Bollywood, just like American Cinema is known as Hollywood. In no article of American actors, there is a not about the base of their industry or the language which is spoken there. Why include it in actor's article that don't work in Hollywood if an article about their corresponding cinema industry is availabe?

~The usage of brackets is of no exception in Wikipedia articles, Brackets[2] are defined in Wikipedia as well as finding its use in the Screen reader [3] article as well.

There is no proof that screenreaders do not understand the use of Brackets or even a Slash/ [4].

These signs are a part of the English Language, taught to and understood by all special users as well. Wikipedia does not deter the usage of relevant signs whenever applicable.

The reason why a brief description is neccessary is because the actor Salman Khan is a part of Indian Cinema and not Bangladeshi Cinema for example. The term Indian Cinema is recognised and understood by all readers, in the U.S as well as Eskimos in Alaska. The Informal and unofficial term Bollywood cannot be associated to the actors of the Mumbai based Film Industry, it is a wrong practice.

That is why the Industry has its official Indian International Federation Awards instead of calling it Bollywood awards as seen by the West.

One could leave the reference as Indian Cinema alone, but then vandals would change it to Bollywood alone, That is why the brief verifiable description is necessary.

Thanks-.--LuckyS 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS

~You Wrote- about Screen Reader and brackets: out of personal experience, I know that older versions and some of the alternatives are not able to interpret brackets, slash, &, *, ~ and the sort of things. Also, including a sentence with brackets that could very well be incorporated into the sentence structure apparantly isn't encouraged. That is why I applied for Third Oppinion that time and corresponding answers are still in Khan's talk page.

• We are only talking about the usage of Brackets and Slash here which is relevant to the subject (all subjects in Wikipedia) as well as user friendly.

~You wrote- As for "vandals" - just keep them at bay and explain things to them; if they change Indian Cinema to Bollywood, it's not vandalism but a case of Assume Good Faith. If the corresponding "vandal" comes to the article, and changes things, just talk to him/her.

• Do you personally talk to vandals or revert their changes?

Besides I meant, if only a vandal replaces the term Indian Cinema completely with the informal term Bollywood alone.

• I have provided the most accurate and undisputed description now, hopefully you do not take it as a personal challenge and appreciate it as a verifiable edit of Good faith, and move on to productive contributions like providing better Photographs of the actor. You have done it before and will be very appreciated for your efforts again.

Best regards- --LuckyS 22:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS

Pics

You Wrote- About the pics: I'm afraid most of them, especially the stills and promo pictures have to go. I talked to User:Meegs about this, and I'm afraid that he's right when he says that they violate fair use rationale #1.

~This will be a tricky affair, as almost all of the Indian actors have pictures related to their past Movies. For example Shahrukh Khan, Amitabh Bachchan, Rani Mukerji and Aamir Khan to name a few, by deleting them, the actors may have to come here and personally provide their owned Photographs, which is very unlikely. It is hard to find such royalty free pictures.

I reckon, pictures related to past movies or even forthcomings should not be seen as promotion. Besides, the contributers submitted them in good faith for educational purposes, rather than promotional.

There are better commercial ways to promote a film. Hopefully you can find a better latest pic, which fulfills the requirements. The Lucky picture is a good one, but not the latest, in todays context. ---LuckyS 01:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS

Salman Khan article

The Rani article seems to be in fairly good shape now and so far my rewrite of Amitabh Bachchan seems to be holding steady. I just spent an hour rewriting the Salman Khan article. I added some extremely restrained language about some of the past scandals and gave published references. We'll see what happens with Lucky. He has ignored the third opinion, but we can try getting a mediator if necessary. There are steps that can be taken after that, but let's see what develops. I'm at your back, Plumcouch! Thanks for all the care and attention you've given to the Bollywood articles.

Hey, for fun, try this new blog: [5]. It's an imitation of [6] and [7]. I'm not overwhelmed with it so far, and it hasn't been going that long, but it has possibilities. I found a reference to it at [8], which is one of my favorite blogs. Zora 02:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kamal Haasan

Without doubt Kamal Haasan is India's biggest and best actor, with several national awards, a hitherto of roles and many more. We should try to get him as close to a featured article as possible. A major revamp is needed not including dubbed films in the filmography. His website is a great place for info. Please contribute, Plumcouch. Your dearest friend Thamizhan 11:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan

Please vote for the Kamal Haasan article to become an article to be improved to be featured here, Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Kamal HaasanThamizhan 14:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

== Can't even see Karan in that picture ==

You can't even see him. So, what's the point of the photo? Who wants to see yellow hair? People want faces. If you can find a better photo, then do so but that picture just looked bad and that's why I put this photo which was saved in my files. Thanks! --- User:shez_15

==Okay==

You mean you can get sued for other pictures? Wow. I had no idea about that. Thanks for sharing this information with me. So, you took this picture? Wow! Good for you. -- User:shez_15

== Notable Roles ==

Hey. Zora, pa_7, plumcouch, I think we ought to define notable roles: first , i put them on Rani's page, but now, it's everywhere and it's spreading. I think we should have a maximum of seven or eight notable roles because it takes lots of space. Plus, you can talk about notable roles in career section. I saw Brad Pitt's page and it has three notable roles when he has done much more than that. But since it's Bollywood and actors usually do thrice as many movies as actors in Hollywood, we should make nine the maximum but it's too much, eight or seven is maximum. We can decide later but that's what I think. And if another notable role comes up, we should remove the least notable from the list if the list already has a maximum. I would define a notable role as if it's a really big film and the actor played an important role in it. Another thing could be critical appreciation and box office results, though not applicable in the case for critical success only. Mostly, we should think of notable roles as powerful roles that leave an impact. The actor or actress must be really important in the movie. Like Bipasha Basu in Corporate or Sushmita Sen in Main Aisa Hi Hoon. Strong career women. Good thing! Ummhhh.. The list should have a variety. Like a prostitute profession in one film, in the other one, he or she should be a businessman or businesswoman, a housewife, a lawyer, a doctor. In Rani's case, for example, Saathiya and Chalte Chalte, they are similar films but she is a designer in one and a doctor in the other. But we should not put one of them on the list because the films are similar and then it's not notable cause the actor made a trademark and rather than others following him/her, she/he repeated herself and himself. Zora, you define. It's hard. A cameo should never be notable even though it can play an important part in a film like Kareena in Don. Lastly, I feel there should be a maximum of two notable role per year. But it's better when there is only one per year. Thanks for your time, you guys, now let's work. ---User:shez_15

Hrithik Roshan

Hey. Just got your message, will look out for this new user. Happy Halloween!! -- Pa7 19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I actually don't celebrate Halloween but only comes once a year! Might as well enjoy it! -- Pa7 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kuch Kuch Hota Hai

Plumcouch, I think the "role descriptions" you added are a bad idea. They take away from the synopsis. Furthermore, they are personal opinions -- those are your views of the characters. I might have a different reaction. (It's been a few years since I watched the film, and I'm more familiar with Bollywood conventions now, so I'm not sure what my current reactions would be.) Could you please cut them down again?

You've done so much good work that I don't want to hurt your feelings, but I think that in this case you made a mistake. Zora 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't look at the Hollywood film articles (other than Firefly related ones; yes, I'm a Browncoat) and I believe you when you say that various film articles have the role descriptions. I still don't think it's a good idea. One bad example doesn't deserve another. If you're going to include descriptions, get them from a critic -- don't give personal impressions.

I'm constantly fighting to keep the film articles "reality-based" and neutral. I know very well that all the media-related articles (for whatever industry or country) are magnets for hard-core fans who live and breathe for various bands, singers, actors, fictional universes, etc. For them, that's the most important thing in the world, and they bulk up the articles with material that doesn't really require any research beyond listening or watching or reading celebrity magazines, and that gives them an illusion of being important experts who are part of the same world as their idols. It's an ego thing -- as you see with Shez and others. People outside Wikipedia make fun of us for that. We have three screens of material on Sarah Michelle Gellar and half a screen on Charlotte Yonge ... a 19th century novelist who is certainly more important than a contemporary television actress. (See this very funny article on WP by a Wired columnist: [9]) So I suppose I'm taking a much more academic, distanced view of movies and actors than many WP editors working in these areas. I want balance! I don't want WP to be trivia and nothing else. Zora 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Help required.

Dear Plumcouch; Apart from Kamal Hassan;there are 2 great actors of India;who are much greater than him-Shivaji Ganesan and NTR.How about improving them to featured article status?(As they have donned more number of roles than Kamal.).Mammootty too is equally good actor.(He too won 3 National awards for acting.)S.GaneshKumar 09:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan

Please vote for the Kamal Haasan article to become an article to be improved to be featured here, Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Kamal HaasanThamizhan 15:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan/Salman Khan Filmography is MESSED UP!! Restore to previous entry please

Some dumb guy with IP "60.240.126.50" has copied Salman Khan's filmography and pasted it into Sharukh Khan's article. This "60.240.126.50" dumb guy also messed up some of the movie articles of Salman Khan.

What a JERK (60.240.126.50)

Thanks. Please save the articles and if you can then block the articles from editing by unknown people.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shahrukh_Khan"

Image:Salman khan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Salman khan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will 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. --Chowbok ☠ 17:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Salman Khan (again)

Hope all is well. Sorry for the delay in responding. I had left a strong message on LuckyS's talk page on 28 October. And he has not edited every since. Is that the case? Let me know if any issues come up again. -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I am King Dracula,how are you?

I am currently worked on pages such as Bhavana, Arya, Nayantara, Shreya, Jeeva etc. etc.

Happy Editting!

King Dracula 23:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tabu (actress).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tabu (actress).jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will 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. --Chowbok ☠ 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

About that Sprotecting request

Hello, Tariq, I read your note on the Requests for page protecting page. I'm not so savvy when it comes to WP's technical issues, so maybe you can help me there: if you want to talk to someone who has a different IP every time s/he logs on, do I have to write on *each* of his various talk pages? Also, I think the anon has taken up a user name, User:Knbh. I have talked to him/her there, but there was no response. Also, s/he doesn't seem to use the account anymore. And, IMO, it's not a question of content. Normally, when someone adds an actor/actress to an up-coming movie, I check the change via IMBd, ComingSoon, or, in case of Bollywood movies, RadioSargam, IndiaFM and Rediff. There are no references for all the actors acting in the movies the anon has edited. I asked several times for references to be added, but to no avail. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to talk to someone who has a different IP every time s/he logs in, it would be very difficult to make contact on his/her user talk pages. Perhaps you could encourage the user to create an account (given it's so quick and easy) to make things a bit easier. Alternatively, you could facilitate discussion on the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s). -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam article, in alignment with the other two articles for which you requested semi-protection (and were semi-protected by other admins). -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope...

...that you don't mind me sharing the honour. :) --thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

re The Under World Don

Fair enough, I won't contest it, and thank you for taking the time to notify me. Herostratus 16:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Plumcouch, how you doing? I've been away from wikipedia for weeks now, been too busy with work. Just thought I'd catch up with you. Any articles need improving? Any users bothering you?. I had a look at the edit history for Rani Mukerji, things have been quiet so far. Im gonna start an article on Mukerji's new film Chudiyan, since there seems a lot of controversy surrounding the film. Take care. -- Pa7 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan

Just to let you know that I have replied to your query on my talk page. Best wishes, Ekantik 01:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji

Hello, I am writing this message regarding the Rani Mukerji page. I did some recent editing on that page and started a discussion regarding the section "Media appearances". I was going to delete it but I thought it would be better to discuss it. If you can, come to the discussion page on Mukerji's article and state your opinion on this section. -- Pa7 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

misspell of Joe Mad!

Thank you for the Joe Mad! info. I thought it was odd that there wasn't an article for him yet, I went back to the page where I initially found the misspelling and changed it there too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nstatz (talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC).