This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Yes, per your query, I am trying to help out when I can to clean up Wikipedia. Bearian 19:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply. Made some small grammar edits and found some citations; thanks for keeping me posted. Best, DJRafe 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem at all! I'd be glad to help you out!

Tonight or tomorrow I will take a further look at both articles and will add the necessary information.

And do not worry, I can do it all by myself, I just finished my exams period and have time ;)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zisimos (talk • contribs)

I need your help on Rani Mukerji's page. Haphar seems to delete almost everything every week. And it's frustrating. Also, we need a discussion on Filmfare Awards where the dates are of when the movies were released rather than when the award was given. - shez_15

replied on user talkxC | ☎ 10:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

you reverted my post in a discussion page, but left the other guys post. now you tell me why --Mhart54com 02:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, which page are you talking about? Give me a link to make sure we're both talking about the same article.

Secondly, a look at your contribs shows me this edit which I am assuming you are referring to. Your post to the article talk page was completely unrelated to improvement of the article and so was removed, with this edit where I removed the other irrelevant comments as well.xC | ☎ 10:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A ((prod)) template has been added to the article In-N-Out Burger menu items, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with ((db-author)). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shweta_Tiwari all the info on this page has been copied and pasted from her official fansite - www.shwetatiwari.net

the least you people can do is put the fansite in the references list instead of plagiarizing and removing links to her actual, original, exclusive resources.

otherwise, write up a whole new and ORIGINAL wiki page for her without listing her site in the references and we are fine with that.

Who exactly is we?xC | ☎ 09:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your message, but i am afraid i do not feel "shaped" fot the kind of job you randomly asked me to do. Even if, no doubt about that, the girl has generous shapes, my personal contribution should rather aim at reducing the - to my opnion only - already extravagant article devoted to her.

Sorry for my lack of cooperation - this time -, and my selfish choice that will keep english speaking people unconscious of the (very) hidden messages lying in the italian article. Understand me; i have absolutely nothing against the girl. If i were not married, i should say "Nope, on the contrary, argh", but you will easily understand i have strong reasons to keep to strict neutrality...

I suggest you to affect the article to someone else, that should be more cooperative, madly in fanatical and desperate love with her (and ... less married too). In short, someone definitively younger.

Never mind, i promise, one day , in order to apologise, i will translate you something else, on a subject i will choose myself, in english, from a french or italian subject. I am effectively more used to create new articles, even at times translated from english into french (fr:cuirassé bouvet, fr:will self, fr:scotch egg, fr:Leicester rouge fr:fromage d'Ayrshire, fr:Stilton avec des Cranberries...) or from italian to french or directly in italian.

See you.--AchilleT 22:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Not an issue.

Just to clarify, I picked out that article at random. Several articles in English Wikipedia have better articles in other languages Wikipedias. As a member of Team Echo, we're just trying to help all the different language Wikipedias grow and help each other out.

Hoping you will help out the community with your fantastic language skills,

xC | ☎ 08:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Do not worry; i will find a better way to help the community, that suits me better. And i'll ask you to correct my poor english, Is that OK with you ? --AchilleT 20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Always looking for ways to help out :)

Hope to work with you on an article sometime, xC | ☎ 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was just rereading the David DeAngelo AfD, and I realized that you asked me a question which I didn't answer. So, sorry that it took so long for me to realize you asked! I cannot apologize enough. You asked if I was a deletionist, and I'm inclined to say "no" -- deletionists typically have very high standards for what should be allowed on Wikipedia, and I'm usually not too concerned with that. For example, there was the attempted webcomic purge, but on that matter I'm on the side of webcomics. I even feel -- and no deletionist would ever accept this -- that Wikipedia's prohibitions on original research are absolutely and totally misguided. (I'll not bore you by explaining; just suffice it to say that I disagree.)

Anyways, that was my first attempt at "hosting" an AfD, if that's a proper term. And I think I'm going to avoid them in the future -- I thought I'd made a completely transparent case, but in the course of the debate: (1) People paid little to no attention to what notability really means on Wikipedia, (2) I was accused of being pro-life, even though I'm not, (3) I was accused of being opposed to his teachings, which as far as I can tell I'm not. Meanwhile, it's really not my concern how Wikipedians waste these particular kilobytes of Wikipedia's hard drive space. I might not see more point to an article about DeAngelo's personal beliefs than I see about an article on my own, but hey--it's not really my problem and I don't really care much.

Hope that cleared this up; though in all likelihood I'd imagine you forgot that you asked! -- Drostie 13:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I roughly agree with you about the WP:OR bit, and this isnt because i lean towards mergo-inclusionism (if there is such a thing). I believe that there is a good bit bit of evidence for a fair number of things that cant be included on Wp for any odd number of reasons, and that it isnt fair to the editor who has actually put in the effort to research something on his won. Does that mean that every crackpot theory be included on WP? No, rather I;m saying that give a plausible-soundig theory some space... even though it goes against the current wording of WP:OR. What are your views on this? You're among the few editors that (perhaps) share a similar view.

I think the policy on notability is also due for a re-work. Possibly, we're throwing out articles that might deserve to be included, while keeping things that we shouldnt. Although again, what should and should not be kept often becomes a subjective and heated debate...

And just to clarify, I do remember the question I had asked you :) Looking forward to you reply,

xC | ☎ 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know -- I'm not sure I'd put the line at "plausible-sounding." I understand the debate as such: Wikipedia has been created with two opposing goals: to be a broad-based reference source on everything, or to be a free professional encyclopedia. It reminds me, to some extent, of the distinction given in the HHG2G novels between the Hitchhiker's Guide and the Encyclopedia Galactica.

Wikipedia has the resources to be either -- and, in my opinion, the notability policy is not meant to discriminate between the two. (The term "notable" is really a bad term for this sort of thing.) I would like to see the general administration come down on one side or the other. Deletionists are probably correct to want to delete articles on webcomics and such -- if and only if we're trying to be the Encyclopedia Galactica. But if you hadn't guessed from my tone, I think that a Hitchhiker's Guide would be preferable.

The only problem with that is that as long as statements are verifiable, if you're trying to be complete, then there is no reason to ever delete any real content -- except possibly if it can be organized better on different pages.

I think everybody's somewhere in between. Nobody wants Wikipedia to devolve into a place where every high schooler has his own personal little website on Wikipedia; yet nobody wants to see a Wikipedia where most of the useful stuff is cropped out in long disputes on a very rigorous attribution and verification policy. I think the people passionately on either side need to accept a compromise of middle ground -- Wikipedia has some standards, and needs to be more clear on exactly what they are. I, for example, would guess that DeAngelo as a person doesn't need a wiki page -- maybe one broad overview article on the seduction community as a whole, sure, but probably not a page for each of its gurus. But until Wikipedia achieves a very specific sort of compromise, with something clearer than the current notability policy, we're going to always have vicious AfD debates.

My two cents.

-- Drostie 09:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say first off, my apologies for the late reply. I've been tied up in real life and not left with any free time for WP.

You're right, it is the extremes here that are causing conflict. Now all I'm wondering is there anything that plain old editors like us can do to make the AfD process clearer? And if this involves re-framing some of the policies that WP is based on, then I'm all for it.

I wonder, is there any specific place where we can take this debate, where it won't devolve into the sort of free-for-alls controversial talk pages witness all the time?

Also, do you know any more editors that would be willing to take this from an idea into a truly community-wise question?

To be honest, this is the very reason why I stopped contributing here... there isnt much clarity about the policies, and it ends up being a cyclic process explaining things to newbies again and again. Every other day someone comes along and re-writes the page and then you spend the next few weeks explaining why such-and-such content cant be included and what WP's policies are.

Its a pretty long learning curve and it justseems that everyone here doesnt want to do things the way the community wants it to. For example, the Bollywood actors and actress' pages have a new fireball to deal with everyday. Theirpages are locked or never going to be completed simply because rogue editors wont let the damn pages improve. At times, I genuinely feel that there are only a handful of editors looking to improve the content. The rest are simply looking at piling on their on POV's or unverifiable content, or worse, looking to have some fun at the expense of some nice, geeky, hardworking people who are trying to give the world a free encyclopedia.

Just my opinion, David Deangelo is a prominent figure within the seduction community. It seems to me that something notable within a small (or perhaps not mainstream) community would still deserve note in an encyclopedia, even if all the lesser details may not. In fact, I'd be looking at including all the major so-called Gurus who have had some form of lasting impression or influence on the community or its way of thinking. The only problem with that is that we would also end up with a whole lot of pages which arent realy notable.

And so again we come back to the crux of the matter, how do we define 'notability'?

Wthina given context (ie. notable within a given community, hence notable)

Or context-free? (ie. only Google hits, nwespaper entries, etc)

What are your thoughts on that? And if I could request you, could you have a look around as to where we could take this discussion into some larger arena - a community discussion on this topic might actually bring about some form of change...

Thanking you,xC | ☎ 13:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how do you get this to come up when inserting a picture? ((Non-free promotional))

I just want to say that in the new series of Koffee with Karan in the end of the episode Karan says "thanks for being on the show Duggu" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehreemk (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Referring to your previous post, although his nickname 'duggu' may be commonly known, it appears to be non-notable. Perhaps it might seem notable information to die-hard fans, but I believe his nickname and other trivial such information may be unencyclopedic. If you feel otherwise, you can start a topic on the discussion page of the article, after all thats what they're there for.

Hope that helps,

xC | ☎ 12:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

in some newspaper articels it says that Hrithik is helping to write Krrish 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehreemk (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to include that in the article we're gonna have to have a reliable source. If indeed it came in the newspaper that he was helping write the script, we also need to figure out if indded its true.

Have a look at WP:RS and WP:V for more information.

Cheers,xC | ☎ 12:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words xC, I really missed you! My best regards, --Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Keep up the great work,xC | ☎ 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

a comment on the discussion about cobalds.

i use wikipedia and the net regularly to research folklore and myth and find it an invaluable resource but im really sick of ending up reading about gaming characters. folklore is the history of beliefs of civilisations, gaming is fictional and they should not be mixed. it makes research too hard and that i assume is not the aim of wikipedia. by all means have gaming pages and characters but please keep them seperate from genuine mythology and folklore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.34.195 (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. I haven't been following the discussion pages due to my academic work, but I do agree with this point. Will do my best to take part in discussion and swing things the same way.

Regards,xC | ☎ 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey xC!

Just dropped to tell you that Zinta is a GA! I see you're on-line that's why I say, perhaps it'll interest you:)

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed :) Great work, all of you. I'm reading up on the FA criteria, lets see whats left for it to be next FA! xC | ☎ 03:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats exactly what happened. Some user tried to delete a lot of work he's put into the Indian articles by attempting to describe references as inadequate. Naturally Shshsh wasn't pleased about it and protested particularly as this user had in the minutes before attacked several of the other pages and then visited the nomination with the intent to give the "strongest oppose possible". Its like the actions of a child. I can't see anywhere that Shahid reacted in a really offesnsive way and I have to admit he is right about most of the points that were recently addressed. I find it disturbing than the blocker can't see any fault on the other users part either ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm just numb right now. The FAC has turned into a mess. Shahid is blocked. The guy who caused all the trouble has absolutely nothing on his slate. The blocking admin won't reason. What in the world is going on?

Tell me, now what do we do?

• Any committee or admin or someone we can go to and say,"Look, somethings off here. Now why don't you have a look, and tell us what's right?"
• How do the refs back into Shahrukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan?
• How does Shshshsh get unblocked?
• How does the FAC process in a calm, productive manner?

Its things like this that make you wonder how in the world Wikipedia still keeps functioning...xC | ☎ 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is only a 24 hour block. I just always hate the fuss that is made over FA'S and the major reactions you get from people on what are only minor issues. This is why I rarely can be bothered to go for an FA as this is the kind of people and accusations and a whole lot of hoohah you meet. Much Ado About Nothing if you ask me. I'm also pretty tired of people accusing me of canvassing and being sad enough to cite historical quotes of mine to try yo make it look like I asked people for support -thats pretty sad don't you think. What I don't like is the people who always have the strongest objections never actually try to do something themselves - it seems some people like to intentially cause conflict. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know its only a 24 hour block. But even a block for that short a duration sends out all the wrong signals. An editor trying to help an article develop to its potential gets blocked for doing exactly what he should have done... its wrong whats going on there.

As for this whole canvassing situation, I think its all just noise being created. Alright, maybe you've posted on too many peoples' talk pages. The thing is, you didn't ask for support, so it isn't canvassing. I don't see why theres such a big fuss being made over it. The more the people, the better. As it is, it isn't a vote. So how does the number of people count? More people simply means there are more sets of eyes on the same article, trying to see if its quality matches up the rigorous FA standard. Surely more people working constructively is a good thing. But here something seems to have gone awry...

xC | ☎ 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it actually 100 but I asked a lot of people from a range of different fields to try to get a broader perspective on it and a fairer review of it rather than being in the same hands of people like Sandy Georgia and Rahul every time. Somebody was telling me earlier that they put an article up for FA and in a month only two people commented -so he gave up. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I heard about some article related to Cuba which was on GA for three weeks with only one comment. Thats why its correct what you did. The question is how do we make the others realize that?

Variance is the heart of Wikipedia. Variance in the skill of editors. Variance in the interests of editors. Variance in the number of editors. Variance in the topics those editors choose to write about. This is what drives WP. Introducing variance, therefore, can only be positive.

What do you believe is the next step forward? How do we get out of this mess? Any ideas?xC | ☎ 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm going to stay clear of it for several days. I've done pretty much all I'm willing to give to it -there are two million other articles which need attention. Its now up to these opposers and any copy editors to fix what they think is wrong and help promote it. Now we've had about 22 supports which is superb but it really always is the decision of Sandy Georgia and finally Rahul every time in whether an FA passes. There is definately something wrong in the process that the decision is down to one person in the end. I remember at the first Casino Royale FA nomination we had about 35 supports icnluding about 15 strong supports yet Sandy Georgia opposed and we had to restart the nomination a second and a thrid time with considerably less turn out for each one afterwards. It took four months to promote it and it underwent very little change from start to finish. This is why I nearly gave up on every pursuing an FA again, I had a hard time with the Abbas Kiarostami article too. I don't like to dedicate weeks to trivialities when there are millions of stubs on here which need more urgent attnetion. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)

22 supports is fantastic, no doubt.

You're right, I guess... there's nothing more to be done... wait for Shshshsh's block to expire... silently watch the Amitabh Bachchan article getting knifed..

To me, the only good thing here is Zinta failing FA but turning out a better article by the end of the process.

Anyhow, its up to the copyeditors and others now to take it to the level Sandy and Raul want it.xC | ☎ 20:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(resuming after ec)

You just stole the words I was going to say!

The problem lies in the fact that here people sit and nitpick over minor issues. I strongly believe in the 40-60 rule. Which means, sit and straighten out the 40% of the article that absolutely needs attention, and temporarily ignore the rest. That 40% to me is the content, with reliable sources. everything else, images, ext links, formatting, etc is all 60% which is based on the concrete which I laid with the 40%

The thing is, as WP improves, its level for FA rises as well. This is what irks me. With our quantity of editors, we can easily have a ton of FA (or near FAs) if the levels were relaxed a little bit. Come on, one apostrophe, one comma, one hyphen... MOS is a pain to editors like me who are more concerned with the content and not its presentation.

Theres the old saying that food tastes only as good as it looks, but there are copyeditors who take up that field. To the majority of the editors, the content is the priority. And having such processes just takes away from it.xC | ☎ 20:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - for me it is all about content - to build this as extensive as is possible and writing in the most concise and clear and resourceful way possible. Now I also like to ensure the article is well written and has reliable sources but for me minor issues over extra commas etc are just not a major reason to denounce the article as poor. If you read the Zinta article in the context of the encyclopedia most people who never knew about her would probably be pleasantly surprised at such a detailed article on an Indian actress and would give them about as much information as they would want to know and the article towers above the many stubs even on many important subjects. One thing I always notice at FA's is that people don't seem to comment directly on the article content or information in the article which is of vital importance but other issues. Even as we speak there are thousands of even Indian articles which are unreferenced, or sub stubs that require more attention. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I worked heavily on Rani Mukerji and Zinta, alongwith quite a few other Bollywood articles (you can see my braglist here). The thing I note with all these articles is that after a point people get too involved with details and not the actual content. For example on SRK, if you have a look at the talk page, there are people arguing over 3 words being included, which aren't even directly related to him or his religion.

These very same editors could be using that same time to write out other articles, find information, find pictures, and expand those little stubs into GAs.

Humans chase perfection, although perfection is an unattainable ideal. Excellence costs a lot less than perfection, but manages just as well.

We should get working on other articles as soon as possible, my friend. Enough time sunk on this one.xC | ☎ 20:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does make me question where the priorities are. Certain articles will go months without a single edit yet articles like SRK will create edit wars over a few words in just minutes. If people stopped fussing over trivial things and got on with working on what this is all about I guarantee you we'd see the general quality of articles increase dramtically. FOr instance if you picked up a book encyclopedia you woulnd't focus on one tiny article out of its many thousands and start to question commas and spaces when there are thousands of other articles to read and learn about!! Wow I checked out Discrete Bipolar Transistor Biasing -that is a terrific new article but I'm afraid I am not an expert on higher mathematics and physics -although my grandad was actually an electrician!!!. Although I managed to blag an A* at GCSE and my IQ test told me I have a mathemtical brain type (don't ask me how it came up with that) I've always been more into the arts - at A-level I studied history, english and geography and Human Geography at UNi - I dropped my law degree at Cardiff University as it bored me!! I hope to go into environmental management one day. I'm gonna try writing a full length article on Deforestation in Cambodia some time. One thing though I'd suggest is to add a few references but I guess it's difficult if the article is compiled from one source. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very grateful indeed for you work on Indian cinema. Didi you know about some of the difficulty I had with getting the Bollywood blog licensing for the images. That also was pretty painful!! - I had all sorts of people trying to delete them and ruin it. Keep up the great work amigo!!! ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Yes Cardiff Law School it was not far from City Hall, Cardiff -down the road on the right of that picture. I didn't amke it out of the second week I hated it!!! i was thikning about a long illustrious carer than would make me a top salary but if you aren't into it then whats the point.!! Anyway all the best and keep up the editing. I'm gonna tediously continue filling in American films of 1972!! I have some hundred years of films to document! ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Didi you know what the word count of english wikipedia is? ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have it on my own main page. I feel it tells a lot more that the number of articles. 903,000,000 words. Over 900 million words!! for english wikipedia in the articles. Probably 4 billion in total. Crazy isn't it!! ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I created my own main page and found a way to java script it so when I click main page on the task bar it goes to this page. I asked the permission of the guy who does all the data work for wikipedia and allowed me to use the upkeep counters. When I see the word count rocketing by over 100,000 every day it kind of makes me more enthusiastic about it. I thought it looked cooler that the standard one. I also found it handy to have an A-Z index for quick navigation See User:Blofeld/Main Page ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it helps me to keep track of development and to find things easier to access. It is difficult to imagine how wikipedia would look if it was published so I try to use the tools to picture it. Hey where are you living my the way? ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would probably take half the trees in the Amazon to print it wouldn't it!!! Ah excellent wow isn't it late where you are? I live in Barry, Wales and its about 10.50 pm here. I'd love to visit India some day. Hey you should know a lot about Bollywood then!! I tell you its shocking how little coverage the industry gets over here. Most people have never heard of SRK or Amitabh and only know Shilpa Shetty because of Big Brother. Its quite ignorant really that world films are ignored so much and American, British film dominates. I would love to see more Bollywood films shown over here ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Me too I'm to bed also!! ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 23:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch check out User talk:Shshshsh. What a nightmare. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Xcentaur, it's good to be back and meet familiar faces again. :) I'm quite happy with Chiranjeevi's page, however I'm wondering how long it will stay this way. :) If you have a look at it, I think something went wrong with the table of Chiru's filmography when I cleaned it up today, however I cannot figure out how to fix it. Do you have any ideas? It's possible just one small thing somewhere, but it escapes me. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 01:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello xC,

The FAC was not promoted. Yet, I'm happy that we guys did our best to improve the article.

I contacted a very good user - User:Classicfilms, who is mainly responsible for the page. I haven't yet received any reply from him/her.

But I definitely doubt the article being promoted with non-RS sites, as these things are really well checked by the community, before featuring any FA at the "Today's featured article" section on the main page. Let's see what Mr Classicfilms thinks of it, and wait for his reply.

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really suprised to see you writing Delist. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Xcentaur!

You know I like you. And I like your points. Agree with most of them. Yet, I'm sad.

First of all, reviews are always necessary, and see Jolie's page for evidence. Self claims are good as long as they don't provide personal opinion, like Muerji's (yak).

Please see what Blofeld did. Because of this stupid GA review, he's left Wikipedia, after having more than 90,000 edits here. KNM removed Askman, please help me to add it back. I'm sad. :(

Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What? I didn't write it at all... You're wrong, friend. And no - it's not the way to get an FA. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know you didn't write it.

And no, although you (and I, for that matter) believe otherwise, this is the only way to clear FA.

You think just by adding negative reviews, they'll agree to clearing the article? It'll still be taken in as too much self-tooting.

What about the random non-notable critics whose names are being glorified on WP for no reason of theirs?

Yes, I will fight for AskMen, and any other sites which deserve respect. Probably a few of the ones they threw out as non-RS were worth keeping too. Need to study those... xC | ☎ 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Xcentaur, I don't know what's going on... :( This Spangya or whatever his name is, tries to get my block at User:Spartaz's talk page. KNM supported him. I guess, these are some of my most terrible days on Wikipedia. Since the FAC, I've thought of leaving Wikipedia. Some users are so impolite, so rude. Now Blofeld's gone. That's a shame.

After my unblock, I had some nice discussion with Spartaz, and he even supported my proof of boxofficeindia.com being reliable. Now I have to fight them on the talk page. Askman.com was unfortunately removed. I don't think that reviews can be found as possible bias for the simple fact that we are giving critics' opinions, like in Jolie's page (I like Jolie's page so much). As said by one user, Indian critics and sites have no worldwide reconition, that's why we are in this restrained situation. Personally I think, instead of saying "She was praised", it's way better to write "A critic said..." or "according to"

The very nice editor Dwaipayanc‎ that if the article will be delisted (and clearly it will) - that's not such a big deal, because with some minor improvements and non-RS issues, we can easily reach an FA.

As I witnessed on Jolie's page, there are many self-claim quotes. On Zinta's page, much of them have been removed. I think that her father's death quote, must be there. What do you think? Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for this, "Yes, I know its only a 24 hour block. But even a block for that short a duration sends out all the wrong signals. An editor trying to help an article develop to its potential gets blocked for doing exactly what he should have done... its wrong whats going on there."

Al the users speculate now using my block as an evidence of me being a bad editor. That hurts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. I know how it feels, I've been blocked once before too.

Self-quotes. I think it can be used in context of early life, family, non-film related work. In other words, we can't have her talking about her films. As for critics, for eg we have Roger Ebert in Jolie who is a prize-winning critic. The names we had were random non-notable people with their opinions tacked onto the article. Thats the reason I never agreed to having them in there. Those have to go, because they bring the level of the article down considerably.

Refs I'm starting to work on. Its difficult, very difficult to convince a group of editors that a site is reliable once they have made up their minds that it is not.

Leaving WP will not help. Thats what the world believes anyway - this thing we're working for shouldn't work in theory. It is us who make it work. Keep fighting the good fight,xC | ☎ 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. Amy Dumas only did te move on male wrestlers in the Diving version because it's to dangerous to do on female wrestlers. I think it should be put back. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxbulldogxx (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)