User talk:Sanjay911

Welcome

Hello, Sanjay911, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to My Name Is Khan, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Managerarc^talk 12:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

crore

Please take care to use the right number of zeros when converting crore. The convention in rupees is to write in Indian rather than Western standard so 20 crore is 20,00,00,000 not 230,000,000. Fæ (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filmfare Award

Hey Sanjay, thanks for your contributions and your concern! Sadly I have to tell you that Aishwarya Rai did NOT win the FF Award for Jeans. This page earlier had a fake list of winners, with no sources at all. We decided to research and find the real winners, substantiated by good sources. And the only reliable sources are news paper articles from that time, with a full list of all the winners of that year, like the one published on tribuneindia.com or the expired one from dailyexcelsior.com (which you can find here now or the one from Times of India, I have found here (with information like the published date and author!). The one you have given from Hindustan Times is clearly based on the list that was published on Wikipedia! (And it's indeed really shocking to see that even Hindustan Times is not doing detailed research, but rather taking over from other sources!!) If it's true that Aishwarya Rai had won the award that year for Jeans, then you have to be able to prove it by presenting a reliable source that mentions all the winners of that particular year, with Aishwarya Rai being quoted amongst the other winners of that year. And I'm extremely sorry to say, that you unfortunately will not find any such source (unless you yourself create one!), since it just never did happen! The Tamil Filmfare Award 1998 for Best Actress went to Kousalya! I hope you will realize and accept this now. Thanks! Johannes003 (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, this is getting tougher and tougher. You are making it tougher and tougher. See, it's not about who is right and who will win between us, it's about publishing the truth only. I am very much ok to "lose" here, if you can prove you're right, but's that's all not that easy. You didn't (or don't want to) understand what I said, what I asked for. For a long time, a very long time, Wikipedia was carrying Aishwarya Rai's name as the winner of that award, so all sources in this world, however reliable, regarded and respected they are, will claim that Aishwarya won it, because sadly even these reliable, regarded and respected sources had to peak into wikipedia to create their articles! And it's not possible to "use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, this is ciruclar sourcing! Again, I want to see a source where all winners of that year are quoted, optimally a news paper article from that time. I gave such one, even two such articles, all you gave where just random biographies of Aishwarya, which itself are all based on wikipedia. Okay, try to tell me, who won the award for Best Tamil Actor or which was named the Best Tamil Film in 1998? I can answer this and have ample proof for this, can you?

Okay, another way: At least provide a single source, an interview with Aishwarya Rai, where she herself cites she won the award in 1998 for Jeans, straight from the horse's mouth and I will believe you. Don't come up with biographies published by these so-called respected sources, I am not going to believe or accept them. This is a really hard case and it's a pity to see that it's so hard to prove the real winner and that even India's most notable sources have disappointed here. I don't know how and whether you will ever believe me and accept this. You have to my dear! Johannes003 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And A. R. Rahman being spelt as Rehman is not that much a sensible error, he has been spelt either way a lot of times! Moreover, if you watch carefully, that article is from Times of India too, one source you yourself labelled as credible, so be careful with your reproaches, they might backfire. Johannes003 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EW

You are currently engaged in an edit war on Filmfare Best Actress Award (Tamil). Kindly stop edit warring and turn to the talk page as what other editors are saying seems to be right. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Rai

I know who you are and you know me, and you have another warning to stop edit warring. The sources you are citing, which are not reliable enough (one of which is a fansite) do not support the claim that the movie is a critical and commercial success. Actually Aishwarya herself is not a reliable source. Secondary sources must be added. And secondly, as for the Padma Shri record you are so keen to add: spicezee is not a reliable source, it says she is the youngest person and you are saying she is the second youngest. Come on.

If you continue edit warring on the article and on any article, I will not hesitate to start an ANI on you, and I also noticed you added a very false nominee to the MTV movie awards, which made me laugh but which is unacceptable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:LEAD. What you write in the lead must be a summary of what the article contains. First write in the article, and then summarise it in the lead. Actually the Raavanan article says the film received mixed reviews, so.. well.

As for Padma Shri, please cite a source that says she is the second youngest, that's all. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harrassing me by creating more than one section each time you post me a message. Raavanan was definitely more successful than Raavan which was a disaster, but it still was not as successful as JA, Robot and all the other films. Going by that logic you would have to mention lots of movies just because they do better than other disasters. Raavanan actually grossed less than Raavan, so no issue there. And once again, it is not even properly discussed in the article to have the lead mention it.

As for Padma Shri, spicezee is not reliable and once a mistake was found, the source cannot be taken at face value. I'm not talking only about Smita Patil, Nargis is another example. She was 29 when she received it. So this is another proof that this claim is just false fluff. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people from the industry have actually received the award when they were younger than Aishwarya was when she received hers. A. R Rehman received the Padma Shri when he was 34, Vyjayanthimala received it when she was 32, and many others for which I'm not going to search. Just for the record, even if I had not had any answer to that, it wouldn't have mattered. What matters is how you support your claims, and for that you must cite a reliable source which explicitly backs up your claim. The source you cited was totally wrong and cannot be taken at face value.

As for Raavanan, I'll repeat again and again this mantra. The lead is a summary of the entire article. Raavanan is not discussed properly. Secondly, it was successful, but not as much as other films in her career. That's an insult to her own capabilities as a star. And as I said, it received very mixed reviews, among which you can find this, and even Sify (which you have cited), gives it an "above average" verdict here. I don't get you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not see Padma Shri as a remarkable feat anyway. 2.5 is not bad and not good - it's average. And no, they are not mixing it up with Raavan - these are individual reviews for Raavanan. Come on... Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other reviews, then cite them (WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS). I'm sorry, I strongly disagree with this addition given the reasons I've given already, and you are now being reported for edit warring on the Filmfare page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From all the sources cited by you - only The Hindu and Rediff are reliable. And both give average reviews. Rediff said it is better than Raavan. So what? It means nothing considering the fact that Raavan was such failure. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's The Hindu which described it a masterstroke and a boon. One source is not enough. The fact that other articles are using unreliable does not mean this one should do it as well - see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay, please try to understand, it takes far more than two reviews to conclude the final verdict of the majority view. Two reviews are not enough, and one of them is not that positive to begin with. And do not forget the negative ones. Try to see both sides, not the one you feel most comfortable with. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, this conversation probably better belongs on the article talk page where everything will be together in one place for other editors to review and make their comments rather than having to jump through 3 pages. Also, please sign your comments Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a big issue. Sometimes what starts out as being a conversation appropriate for one place morphs through the discussion into something that should be somewhere else, but being in the thick of the conversation the change is not immediately or easily spotted by those directly involved!Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to place content in appropriate encyclopedic tone

Please stop adding POV commentary such as "bumper" and non-reliable source to [[1]]. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at Filmfare Best Actress Award (Tamil) has been filed

Hello Sanjay911. Please see the discussion at WP:AN3#User:Sanjay911 reported by User:Shshshsh (Result: ). You may add your own comment there if you wish. If you do not respond, it is possible you may be blocked for WP:Edit warring. It is stated that you have been restoring wrong information to the article which was at one time copied from Wikipedia. If you won't be cautious about this, it is a serious matter. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Raavanan

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Sanjay911 reported by User:Shshshsh (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hey Sanjay and welcome back. I hope you are back for good. I don't think there's any sense in proceeding the discussion further when in fact there's already a discussion on the talk page on which you can see what editors, including me, think. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you want to add it, then use the talk page because I'm not the only editor opposing to the mention of Raavanan in Aish's lead. Other than that, I support your recent edits to the article although I copyedited the Oscar part a bit and added a better source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop personal accusations and attacks and stop edit warring. If you continue edit warring without citing sources and reaching discussion on the talk page, you will be blocked from editing. I may even report you at WP:ANI, I'm fed up of this fanaticism. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you were asked once and now it is the final warning. Please use the talk page and stop edit warring. First gain consensus and then revert others' edits. Next time you will be reported again. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your last paragraph which went in violation of WP:NPA. This is not going to be taken lightly and I will definitely report this. I don't know what my involvement with the Preity Zinta article has got to do with this article (btw, unlike your stuff, the Jaan-E-Mann section of Zinta carries a scathing review which calls her "ornament throughout", and Rotten Tomatoes is based only on 8 reviews which too do not have much weight since it's a full masala Indian movie, unlike Provoked), but your accusations are personal attacks which you definitely are not allowed to post on Wikipedia. As for the discussion, I'm waiting for other editors to step in. Not going to reply to your baseless statements. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the response to the performance as "mostly positive" until the discussion brings a final consensus. Waiting for other editors' response. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not trying to be as neutral as possible. Actually, many times you were adding false information. For one, just let me remind you how you falsely added Aishwarya's name to the list of 2010 MTV nominees. Also, the Tamil Filmfare award is a great example of that. You used another account (User:Schmuck17) to revert the page. So please do not speak about double standards and integrity until you prove it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit whatever you want, this page is not owned by anybody, but it must adhere to policy, and therefore I will be watching your edits. I was one of those who expanded the article at the time, so sorry I did not let the article look like a sleazy magazine. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. I'm rewriting and you're reverting - you are the only one who's reverting edits, and that's not the first time, so beware. Also, do discuss it on the talk page first. You're the one whose edits are not agreed with, so the burden of evidence is on you. I already started a discussion. Also, if you want this article to succeed, you better stop, because it's a GA nominee and may fail just because of that, and that's a pity. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, being the 'leading' actor in an industry (not a film) is not just playing the lead role. That's why it's said 'the leading in industry X'. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think it is better so say that she is one of the top Hindi actresses and several of her dance performances are recognized. She is not to my knowledge the top dancer in Indian. The first sentence says she is Indian, the top actress part makes sense to relate to Hindi cinema, the industry she is in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I keep forgetting about it. Will pay more attention from now on! :) Sanjay911 (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]