User talk:Kailash29792/Archive 20

179: 1359: 1145:. I understand your (and Kailash's) point about waiting for reviews. My advice is that, you don't have to practice this by requesting for reviews all the time. Give some time for each nomination. I can vouch for the number of the reviewers who take up reviews relating to films. So you don't have to worry about your article being failed for lack of reviews. Also, given there is no constraint on the number of nominations that a particular user can make (unlike FAs/FLs) at one point in time, there is no question of waiting. You can work on any number of articles at a given time and nominate them whenever you want. Take a look at my DYKs: 1263:. Your major concern there was that reviewers are unintentionally promoting articles to GA/supporting an article's promotion to FA/FL as a sign of quid pro quo and some candidates in the process get a promotion they don't really deserve. To be clear, it was like "i jump, you jump, let's die" :p. But i do not discourage someone asking for reviewing their nominations because, sometimes, the article's stability goes for a toss and if the article is not protected/ill protected, that would ultimately fail the article at the GAR, making the nominator's hardwork waste though he wasn't responsible for that. 126: 360:, at least not without providing any sort of sourcing. The problem is that this person was a sockpuppet that went around editing many articles that did not have proper sourcing and in some instances, they added some extremely bad sourcing like eBay listings. I have no problem with you restoring an article but I'd prefer that you provide sources when you do this. Restoring it just raises the chances that the article could be deleted at AfD or via other outlets since any and all articles edited by this sock are being pretty heavily scrutinized. 119: 112: 31: 2341: 211: 3163: 1802: 671: 2583: 2033: 1843: 765: 587: 531: 404: 134: 3443: 3179: 2424: 1624: 1511: 1321: 1212: 997: 957: 644: 461: 2737: 2052:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 1862:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 606:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 550:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 423:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 1114:. But Knowledge is all about collaboration, as co-nominators, copy-editors, as reviewers and nominators, and whatever the relevant case may be. In fact, i understood this pretty clearly because of you. So, yes, i collaborated. I am not sure you may agree with me, but i shall continue to collaborate like this until i reach a BEP. 2256:, the rationale says, "as of 2016, works published prior to 1 January 1956 are considered public domain" and those works include "Anonymous works, photographs, cinematographic works, sound recordings, government works, and works of corporate authorship or of international organizations". I wanted a free file of 809:

Btw you might need to use the dictionary to find the meaning of 'harresment' ! ask the user to talk before reverting and nothing will happen alright? No one owns wiki pages everyone can give their input as long as referenced and makes real sense and true. Alright? AB has won best actor / supporting /

1378:

Hi Kailash, just a random note to thank you for all your hard work, especially for your work in Indian cinema articles. Among a tumultuous sea of paid editors, sock operators, vandals, spammers, and edit-warriors, your name always bounces to the top as a beacon of integrity, and someone who doesn't

1014:

Still, don't you think it is too early to nominate the article for GA? Typically, films that are still running in theatres should not be nominated, as information on them (especially BO info) will be fluctuating and unstable. I don't know how to determine if a film is still running in theatres, but

1140:

with your every point of yours (about collaboration) except 'review'. By collaboration we mean: editing, co-nominating, and requesting for peer reviews. While there is nothing wrong in decorating our user pages with our achievements (I do that), improving the quality of content should be our prime

1316:

I was just trying to say that for articles with a good level of public attention, it is not advisable to keep them in the queue on GAN page for a long time as we cannot predict when lack of stability can happen. And, if anyone thinks that the review was more or less a quid pro quo, one can open a

743:

Hi, Your recent edit on the mention page was not as per Knowledge guidelines. Not only the data was incorrect, as you moved a lower budget film above other higher budget films, but the way a comment was mentioned in the page not to remove the movie from the list. Knowledge is a place where people

1234:. When a reviewer voluntarily takes up a review, there is no problem at all. But generally, I wouldn't encourage the habit of constantly requesting somebody to review GAs/DYKs. I'm sure a majority of us would agree with me. I knew what BEP was, but just couldn't relate to this context! 810:

critics rest are not for his acting skills on a movie ! Tell me if I'm missing something here ? Where as PC has won all film fare awards for versatility! Alright ? If the user thinks AB has won more categories add it then ? Why remove sourced much spoken on media content ?

1150: 1037:

has completed its theatrical run. Whatever figures we found in that source were closing numbers only. Easymovies, Bookmyshow, and the newspapers show no signs of the film's run. Coming to categories, i think it is more than enough. Further categories may be confusing.

2699:

Hello Kailash29792. If you don't respond it is likely that your AN3 report will be closed with no action. I need examples of the dubbed articles that you believe are incorrect, and I'd like to know where the issue of dubbed articles was discussed previously. Thanks,

3013:

peer review. I understand what you said, but it's not that easy to manually archive all urls in the list. There are total 419 urls. Is there any tools available in Knowledge for automatic/easy archiving or anything like that, or any user who can help me with that.

1903:

is re-written in wiki as Nayantara!! As so many news websites recently revealed her passport, issue In that aslo its clearly wriiten as NAYANTHARA and in other articles TOO So by showing this references, can I move the page to NAYANTHARA ??? just i want to know ur

381:

Hi bro, congratulations for bringing Devadasu to GA status which I could not do. Hats off for your brilliant work and also the person who copy edited the article deserves huge credit. I could not do much as I am not feeling well for past few days.

2680:, it is your opinion that all the links should go to the original-language versions? If we are not supposed to have articles on the dubbed films or TV shows, is that rule written down somewhere? If not, it is hard to explain why we would sanction 1141:

focus. That said, I absolutely find no problems with your GAs. IMO, they comfortably meet the GA criteria. But of late, some BLPs (relating to Indian film) that clearly don't meet the criteria are being promoted. This is happening like a

320:

It is a brilliant brilliant film. Every frame looks like a painting. Epic is the correct word to describe. Plus, Chopra has done an outstanding work. Ranveer and Tanvi Azmi are good too. You should watch ASAP. It's not a film, it's an

3108:

I had completed archiving all 411 URLs and replaced some unprofessional sources too. The replaced sources are not that great but that's the best I have got, may be in future there will be better sources which I can replace with.

2592:, and just read Kailash, I think because his name also begins with K I read it as a comment by you to Vensatry. I made a very reasonable attempt to get them to discuss the issue maturely though, as things were going anything but 744:

come to take information. Thus, the edits must be unbiased and correct, and not influenced by personal feelings or interest about a person or a character. I hope you will keep this in mind in your future edis. With Regards,

2714:

I don't know what to say. In my ANI report I already listed some examples. Generally, we should not have articles on dubbed works as they lack distinctiveness and notability. Indian dubbed serials are no exception.

3467:

All the best to you both. As i said earlier, i plan to start my next FAC in the latter half of 2016. And Kailash, i wish you get the well-deserving chance to relax and spend some quality time with your dear ones.

1572:

Since SRK has not undergone a major facial changeover since the past few years, I don't find necessary to change the image; in fact, I hope to keep the same image that was used during the article's FAC pass.

1529:

It's your call since you developed it. But from my point if view, yes, you can go ahead with GAN, albeit after two things: nice proofreading and a GOCE edit. Also try to extend it to 20 refs if possible.

2253: 3202: 3047:

where you can replace each link with its archived version (for sites like IBN, you may archive through WebCite as it is more stable). As for the author fields, you try as much as you can. I'll help.

1015:

when it comes out on home media, I guess that's one way (or reading the newspapers and not finding the film in any of the listed theatres is another). You could also try adding more categories to

3412:

Yes, but not immediately. I have my Final Year Project throughout the year starting from next week, so I'll be quite busy and will be in on-and-off doses here, possibly even on a wikibreak. —

1687: 2009:, the city has a separate railway station and it is too far from Jhansi railway station, then why category has been added in the Banda article, forgive me for using different justification. 242:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. 753: 1471:

Vikram says a comeback is on cards for sure. Krimuk says i shall never return. Dr. Blofeld's mails never got a reply from him, leaving the former concerned. Hope both shall be back.

2044: 396: 3346:

No wonder we have not many free files for Indian actors/actresses and celebrities like Hollywood has. For Bollywood, there is IndiaFM (BH). But for South, we have actually none

2025: 735: 3310:

was answered. I have no regard for the consequences i have to face because of this, as we see many film posters released before 1956 having no {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tags to them.

476: 2101: 880:, we do not create an article about it until significant, non-procedural coverage exists (i.e. we need more than just movie blogs reporting that a movie is being made). Best, 3425:

Then all the best. But I'm surprised how you have time for watching movies, when I (an office-goer completely done with academics) barely have time to watch even TV shows.

2076: 3130: 2986: 1969: 2260:

and this got me thinking. Can i use a screenshot of any of his films released before 1 January 1956 and upload it as a free file? I request your opinion in this case.

1958: 499: 447: 1854: 452: 3133:? It already has six supports but I feel like it still needs to be reviewed by an editor or two. It is almost impossible to write an FA on an Indian biography. -- 3118: 3038: 1146: 869: 1835: 1208:(working), so for that i have to inform him. From 25th, i shall wait. BTW, 'BEP' means "Break Even Point". I hope you understand what it means in general usage. 542: 1096:(which was awaiting a GA review for months), told me that simply asking editors to review an article would save me the exertion of waiting long for a reviewer. 2238: 3380:

I see you plan to take it to FA. A small suggestion however — Do a peer review before FAC though, as I feel a PR puts the article in better shape for FAC. —

3095: 3078: 3056: 3218: 579: 523: 1886: 3359: 3341: 3319: 3297: 3245:

Kailash as you recently said i can nominate articles which is developed by me, but can i nominate articles which is developed but not contributed by me ?.

3232: 2976: 2323: 2302: 2288: 2159: 2141: 1480: 1466: 1452: 1123: 1047: 1028: 1009: 984: 630: 574: 2998: 2849: 2824: 2659: 2646: 2293:

There are, but it might be challenged saying that we require a proof about the same. So, i've decided to follow the likes of Rod Steiger and Madhubala.

2724: 2214: 1333: 1304: 1272: 1254: 1177: 1079: 1603: 1582: 3477: 2963:), a sockpuppet of a banned user, has repeatedly removed the speedy template. Do you wish to keep it? If so I think you should begin a discussion at 2922: 2905: 2870: 2799: 2774: 2709: 2561: 2514: 2489: 2401: 2183: 1784: 1759: 1105: 850: 834: 1231: 3455: 3434: 3420: 3407: 2940: 1539: 1157:. All these had to wait for at least one month (or even more) to attract a review. I have no idea about the 'BEP' thing that you're talking about. 341: 315: 2543: 2012: 2673: 903: 1827: 3192: 1457:

He hasn't been active since the past few months. So I guess yes. But I hope Krimuk returns and restores all his FAs to their former glory.

1154: 1435: 3303: 2651:

Yes, I suspected you might be, it was the gesture. There should be a white feather option for editors to show there's no hard feelings.♦

2002: 1388: 1980: 730: 255: 3023: 2314:. If this stands the test of time, we can surely have so many legitimate free images of actors from their films released before 1956. 2269: 2126: 888: 2377: 2693: 1690:

for the flc. I hope to get some constructive comments from you, for further improvements of the list. I would appreciate it. Thanks!

371: 2946: 2604: 2064: 1874: 618: 562: 435: 3282: 1814:

Thank you for being one of the few editors who came forward (or at least gave a positive reply to the request) to help me review

704: 3267: 1224: 969: 795: 2466: 2210: 2097: 656: 3256: 1927: 173: 2494:

I know who it is. It could well be solved without the page being semi-protected. I'm sure you'll understand what I'm saying.

1658: 1523: 300: 1566: 819: 494: 1284:

It was just a suggestion, which is free to be ignored. I don't know what has 'stability' got to do with my suggestion. :)

3388: 2960: 737: 2759: 2386:

I would have called the film "action comedy", but since the latter genre is not the main focus (it would then look like

940: 841:

I don't think so I am allowed to express my thoughts and feelings. If you find it offensive it's your problem not mine.

2436: 1744: 749: 454: 2048:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1858:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 602:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 546:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 518: 419:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 391: 1128:

Kailash: Indeed, that was meant for Pavanjandhyala! That's why I'd used the 'tps' template. Sorry for being unclear!

415: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3148: 1710: 2677: 1402:}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. 2589: 989:

They will, no doubt. But, West Virginian is inactive since a couple of days, and Jaguar was asked by me to review

2020: 2548:

I guess "lunatic" was once a medical term used neutrally by scientists and doctors, but became a victim of the

1345: 876:

because there is a new movie coming out. However, from what I can tell, the movie has only been announced; per

2910: 2354: 2053: 1863: 1151:

Template:Did you know nominations/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Chidambaram Stadium

1088:

asked anyone to conduct a GA review for me. And you may be wondering what Blofeld has been doing? He reviewed

607: 551: 424: 3153: 2331: 1792: 745: 712: 2858: 2446:

Can you withdraw your request? Also, indefinite semi-protection to talk pages is very unlikely to be done.

922: 825:

You asking him whether he is a lunatic is undeniably an act of offence, hence it classifies as harassment.

769: 227: 191: 144: 3069:

Thanks. I need some time to start. I will definitely complete it, but don't know how long it will take. --

1947: 3462: 3114: 3074: 3034: 3019: 1054: 881: 661: 263: 3439:

My FYP's from next week onwards. As for watching movies, it's simple — One just has to make time for it

178: 2667: 2206: 2093: 1358: 201: 38: 125: 2820: 1823: 1670: 1634: 354:

I'd like to ask that you not undo any redirects for articles that were created or edited by the user

349: 3473: 3430: 3403: 3355: 3337: 3315: 3293: 3278: 3228: 3214: 3188: 3091: 3052: 2994: 2918: 2866: 2770: 2720: 2642: 2573: 2557: 2485: 2397: 2319: 2298: 2284: 2265: 2234: 2155: 2146:

It's okay. I watched that film again because it was Brahmanandam's debut. Any clue about the song,

2137: 2122: 2108: 1923: 1755: 1654: 1578: 1535: 1476: 1462: 1448: 1431: 1329: 1268: 1220: 1119: 1101: 1043: 1033:

I know Kailash. As per the rules of GAN, a film whose BO run is completed can be nominated for GA.

1024: 1005: 980: 965: 936: 830: 652: 490: 311: 251: 105: 2113:

I was watching this today and there was a rather funny parody of a Tamil song from 50:53 to 52:02

1410:

Thanks, I hope more determined and honest editors like me come soon and last long (good ones like

772:, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been 3325: 2954: 2765:

Right now I'm at work, I'll help you tomorrow. But you can still cite the chapter number, right?

2441: 1721: 1492: 275: 3324:

I guess the picture's copyright will completely expire (even in the US) only after 95 years as

3110: 3070: 3030: 3015: 2684:. Your AN3 report listed consecutive reverts so it is not a straight 3RR violation. Thank you, 47: 17: 953:

Can you please review this article for GA status? Let me know if you are interested (or not).

3240: 3004: 2972: 2388: 2307: 2226: 2202: 2089: 2072: 1384: 1368: 860: 726: 598: 364: 3129:

Hi there! Will you be kind enough to comment (or you can do spot checks if you want to) at

3044: 3010: 2816: 2705: 2689: 2198: 2085: 2006: 1819: 1664: 1628: 1399: 910: 758: 2617:. I don't know why Prashant renamed himself to Krish (possibly to cover his identity like 1317:

reassessment and make sure that the article is reworked to meet the criteria comfortably.

8: 3469: 3371: 3351: 3311: 3274: 3261: 3251: 3210: 3184: 2549: 2315: 2294: 2261: 2230: 2151: 2118: 1720:

Can you please add page nos. for the corresponding films in the Ref. column of the table

1596: 1587:

It will have to change eventually, if not now. Please comment about it on the talk page.

1559: 1545: 1472: 1444: 1423: 1325: 1279: 1264: 1216: 1131: 1115: 1039: 1001: 961: 648: 480: 247: 3029:

Also what about the "last name, first name", should I be manually changing all of it. --

3453: 3418: 3386: 2950: 2896: 2840: 2790: 2750: 2618: 2534: 2505: 2480:

cannot trace that abuser, but we Wikipedians can prevent him from doing anything here.

2457: 2434: 2368: 2016: 1891: 1775: 1735: 1521: 1440: 1415: 1395: 1295: 1245: 1168: 1070: 946: 846: 815: 514: 231: 3426: 3399: 3333: 3289: 3224: 3175:

Today, i have 24 GAs and one GA-turned-FA, and my GAN success streak stands at 25-0!

3087: 3048: 2990: 2914: 2862: 2766: 2716: 2638: 2553: 2481: 2407: 2393: 2280: 2275:

Good luck with that. It's best that you upload an image via Commons. But there would

2133: 1995: 1919: 1751: 1650: 1611: 1574: 1531: 1458: 1427: 1097: 1020: 976: 932: 826: 782: 777: 635: 307: 768:

Please refrain from making test edits in Knowledge pages, such as those you made to

3183:

Thanks for helping me in all the possible ways in achieving this! Yours friendly,

3141: 2982: 2968: 2829:

Thanks, but I'm not sure if it exactly matches with the physical copy of the book.

2732: 2652: 2597: 2417: 2229:! After watching the original song in YouTube, i find this parody even more funny! 2179: 2166: 2068: 1701: 1411: 1380: 1364: 918: 722: 697: 387: 376: 361: 332: 291: 166: 2420:. Do watch it when you get the opportunity to do so. A really great and grim egg! 1204:

I shall practice that in the future. Jaguar said that he would review my 24th GAN

975:

Sorry, but I don't have the time. Hope user Jaguar or West Virginian will review.

226:

Hello Kailash29792, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this

3083: 2701: 2685: 2473: 1882: 1715: 1494: 877: 626: 570: 443: 150: 1379:

need any babysitting. Thanks for setting a positive example for everybody else!

718: 640:

Mayabazar turns a FA! Thanks for being a valuable contributor and co-nominator.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3246: 3124: 2257: 2171: 1815: 1681: 1645: 1617: 1588: 1551: 773: 504: 468: 3266:

Sorry to disturb you, but do you think N. T. Rama Rao looks good and clear in

2881:? I think the film finds a mention somewhere in the book where he talks about 2114: 1550:

Any reason not to change it? The editor requested nicely on talk page first?

118: 111: 2964: 2888: 2882: 2854: 2832: 2806: 2782: 2742: 2588:

Apologies for confusing you with Krish. When I logged in this morning I read

2526: 2520: 2497: 2477: 2449: 2360: 1767: 1727: 1419: 1311: 1287: 1260: 1237: 1199: 1160: 1111: 1062: 873: 842: 811: 510: 3223:

By seeing the caption you gave that image, it looks justifiable in my view.

2621:), but I still refer to him by his original name only. Or he could be KINO ( 3307: 3206: 2681: 2340: 2049: 1915: 1859: 1142: 893: 603: 547: 420: 210: 3162: 1801: 670: 3448: 3413: 3381: 3373: 3329: 3135: 2429: 2222: 2175: 2147: 1691: 1649:. But user SNUGGUMS is an active reviewer of Bollywood-related articles. 1516: 1372: 1347: 1059:

In most cases, you really don't have to request somebody for GA reviews.

914: 691: 383: 322: 281: 160: 2582: 3271: 2877: 2252:

I have a small doubt and i hope you can clarify it. If you can observe

1878: 1503: 947: 622: 566: 439: 133: 2409: 2190: 1911: 1892: 764: 685: 235: 155: 1959:"Why was Nayanthara detained at Kuala Lumpur International Airport?" 1620:

for GA Status. Are you interested to review it? Please let me know.

993:. So, i think i should wait, or ask Jaguar. Let's see what happens. 1990: 239: 1501:

Hey bro, d'you figure it's ready for GA. It's size is bigger than

460: 2812: 2472:

Do you know that I was trying to protect you? Because even a

467:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

3131:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Sonam Kapoor/archive2

931:

No thanks. But I'll place comments on the FAC if possible.

154:, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand 1232:

Knowledge talk:Featured list candidates#Bad supports again

356: 2117:. Can you please let me know which film's song that was? 397:

Orphaned non-free image File:Ainthu Ainthu Ainthu 555.jpg

2637:

nly), cos he seems nothing like his superhero namesake.

2132:

Honestly, I have no clue. And sorry for the late reply.

1147:

Template:Did you know nominations/Doorathu Idi Muzhakkam

776:. If you would like to experiment again, please use the 3328:

reads. Unfortunately, there is no fountain of youth or

2779:

Alright! I'm asking page nos. to maintain consistency.

2519:

Calling somebody as 'lunatic' definitely constitutes a

2392:, but it does have many light moments), I left it out. 2026:

Orphaned non-free image File:Killer Frost Panabaker.jpg

2063: